Monday, June 18, 2012

Grading the Presidents of My Lifetime - Redux

I've done this at least once before but I wanted to do it again, not looking back to what I had previously stated.......Eisenhower = B+.......Kennedy = A-.......Johnson = C-.......Nixon = F.......Ford = B.......Carter = C- (only because of the Camp David Accords, otherwise a D).......Reagan = B-.......Bush 1 = B (higher than Reagan, go figure).......Clinton = B+ (if not for Monica and Yasser, possibly an A-).......Bush 2 = D.......Obama thus far = C. Let the arguments and hyperbole begin.

42 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Kennedy B ... Bay of Pigs
Reagan B+ ... Great economic expansion, & Because I can
Carter D+ ... Except for Camp David a disaster
GB 1 C+ ... Lacked fire, gave in too easily to the left

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, the Bay of Pigs kind of was a disaster, huh? Hey, maybe it W's fault.

dmarks said...

If Kennedy went into Cuba and personally beheaded babies during the Bay of Pigs, WD would still rant in response about how Bush was a war criminal.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It all does seem to come back to that, doesn't it?

dmarks said...

I suppose it is my bad for mentioning it first. But without my comment WD surely would have again slandered the object of his obsession before the comment total would have hit 7.

BB-Idaho said...

Presidential ranking depends on time and perspective; the pro stances show some shift , especially between 1830 and 1930, probably based on changing views of what is historically significant vis a vis an administration. Not surprizingly,
the ratings of conservative and liberal 'experts' seem to converge
the further back we go. Then, we
have personal opinion, based on
who knows what...I liked Ike..and
still do.

w-dervish said...

Presidents of my lifetime:

Nixon = F
Ford = F
Carter = B
Reagan = F-
Bush 1 = F
Clinton = B
Bush 2 = F--
Obama = B-
Future President Alan Grayson: A++

Will: Yeah, the Bay of Pigs kind of was a disaster, huh? Hey, maybe it W's fault.

Kennedy inherited the plan from the outgoing Republican Eisenhower administration. According to Ted Sorensen (special advisor and counsel to John F. Kennedy), "[the CIA], which had devised the plan, sold it to the President on the basis of a number of premises which turned out not to be correct".

dmarks: If Kennedy went into Cuba and personally beheaded babies during the Bay of Pigs...

What's with the "if"? Why not just insist that it's "well known" that he did, and that if I disagree the onus is on me to prove you wrong... but then refuse to accept any sources I may present as "biased"?

dmarks said...

What you claim in your last paragraph has never happened. I am sorry you remain ignorant of Ritter's well-known career, but your ignorance is not my fault.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

President Kennedy took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs and I commend him greatly for doing so.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: What you claim in your last paragraph has never happened.

So, you DID present evidence to back up your claim that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have? I must have missed that. Can you please remind me by linking to it again?

However... I'm pretty sure you've adamantly refused to give any evidence that your conspiracy theory is nothing but the delusions of wild-eyed cranks. I dare you to prove me wrong.

dmarks: I am sorry you remain ignorant of Ritter's well-known career, but your ignorance is not my fault.

I am quite informed as to what actually happened, which is why I know your claim that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam to lie about nonexistent WMD is false. In this matter dmarks is the ignorant one.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And Jerry Ford was a good and decent man who Congressman Dingle has said was a very good President and who former Congressman Obey has said was the best President that he ever worked with (and he worked with 7 or 8 of them). For you to give him essentially the same grade that you gave to Nixon and Bush 2 probably says more about you than it does Mr. Ford.

w-dervish said...

The F is for pardoning Nixon. It set a horrible precident that a president will never be held accountable for criminal activity. If not for that pardon Reagan may have been held accountable for his crimes (Iran-Contra) and GWb may have been held accountable for his crimes (two illegal wars, torture, etc).

And I didn't give him the same grade as GWb. GWb gets an F with TWO minuses.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The pardoning of Nixon was a controversial decision at the time and probably the main reason why I voted for Carter (who promptly delivered one of the worst economic performances by a President in U.S. history; 18% interest rates, a 15% inflation rate, and a nearly 8% unemployment rate). But in retrospect most fair-minded people (myself included) think that it was probably the correct decision (the dude was awarded the Kennedy Medal for it, for Christ). The country had already suffered enough and it was time to move on (as opposed to the Clinton pardons of Marc Rich and those Puerto Rican terrorists which made absolutely zero sense). And I said ESSENTIALLY the same; an F and an F-. Come on, man!

w-dervish said...

It was the wrong decision.

w-dervish said...

Fair minded people agree that it was the wrong decision.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Again, that's your opinion and the Kennedy family among millions of others disagrees with you. And why don't you give Clinton an F for his pardon of known Puerto Rican terrorists and one of the biggest tax evaders in United States history?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's a rhetorical question, btw.

Rational Nation USA said...

wd, I do believe you are indeed delusional at times. Either that or you've got your hands on some primo smoke or something.

Jut sayin...

dmarks said...

WD said: "So, you DID present evidence to back up your claim that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have?"

No, I would never make such a statement, because Saddam had WMD, as proven by the munitions found after the invasion. I'd never make such a fake claim as yours.

"I must have missed that. Can you please remind me by linking to it again?"

I can't like to what I never said...something I never said because I know it is not true.


"I'm pretty sure you've adamantly refused to give any evidence that your conspiracy theory is nothing but the delusions of wild-eyed cranks.

Did you google and find information about the pro-Saddam documentary Ritter made, which was funded by Saddam through his business network? It's one of the most important things about Ritter, but I am not surprised you don't know about it, just like you seemed really surprised to find out about his crimes and conviction.

"I am quite informed as to what actually happened"

Well, you are getting there, the more I tell you about it.

"which is why I know your claim that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam to lie about nonexistent WMD is false."

You still have a long way to go, though, because in fact Ritter lied about WMD that actually existed.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Saddam had WMD, as proven by the munitions found after the invasion.

None were found, with the exception of some barrels of chemical agents that were burried and forgotten (and also degraded and unusable).

dmarks: I can't link to what I never said...something I never said because I know it is not true.

So you admit you lied about Scott Ritter being bribed by Saddam to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have? That's good. I commend you for finally coming clean. Just don't backslide and start in with the nonsense again.

dmarks: Did you google and find information about the pro-Saddam documentary Ritter made, which was funded by Saddam through his business network?

The documentary was not pro-Saddam. As for the funding charge... it is totally false accusation made by cranks like dmarks who can't accept the truth... which was that Iraq destroyed it's WMD due to pressure from the weapons inspectors. Containment worked.

Also, you're backsliding already. You said earlier (in the same comment!) that you were done pushing this lie about Scott Ritter.

dmarks: Well, you are getting there, the more I tell you about it.

I'm becoming more informed regarding what delusional cranks believe on the subject, yes.

dmarks: You still have a long way to go, though, because in fact Ritter lied about WMD that actually existed.

The bush administration disagrees with you. After the invasion they looked for WMD and found none. They blamed intelligence failures. Do you seriously not remember this??

w-dervish said...

Will: That's a rhetorical question, btw.

Meaning you THINK you already know the answer. But you don't. Pardoning the crimes of a presidential administration don't compare to pardoning the crimes of an individual.

And I don't give a shit if the Kennedys agreed with the pardon decision. Politicans protect their own. That's why Clinton didn't go after Reagan for Iran/Contra and Obama didn't go after bush for his war crimes.

dmarks said...

WD said: "So you admit you lied about Scott Ritter being bribed by Saddam to lie about WMD Iraq didn't have?"

I never made any such statement. If I had, it would have been a lie. Instead, I accurately pointed out that Scott Ritter was bribed by Saddam to lie about the WMD Iraq actually had, and other matters (incluiding the sanctions)

"The documentary was not pro-Saddam."

It was, since it supported his regime and protected it, and downplayed or lied about its aggression and its other violations of the cease-fire.

"As for the funding charge... it is totally false accusation"

Sorry, the payment was made and Ritter accepted it.

"which was that Iraq destroyed it's WMD due to pressure from the weapons inspectors."

That's a pro-Saddam iie: as undocumented WMD munitions were found after the invasion.

"You said earlier (in the same comment!) that you were done pushing this lie about Scott Ritter."

I've not pushed any lies about Ritter. So I am "done", if being done includes not starting.

There was one, and only one point, you corrected me on. That was my implying that Ritter's arrest was part of a sting specifically aimed at him.. It was not. I was wrong on that, but it does not exonerate Ritter of the crime he was convicted of, or of taking a bribe to do movie that kissed the ass of one of the major world terrorist kingpins. being paid to lie for Saddam is legal and not a crime, of course, but it destroys any credibility Ritter had on issues related to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

"The bush administration disagrees with you."

Whether or not Bush agrees, WMD were found.

"After the invasion they looked for WMD and found none."

The number was between 50 and 500.

"They blamed intelligence failures. Do you seriously not remember this??"

I remember this. They didn't find ALL of the WMD. but they found plenty. And even one was a serious violation of the cease-fire, and proves the "Saddam had no WMD" claim to be a complete lie.

As for intelligence failures, these were 100% caused by Saddam Hussein, since he was blocking the required inspections all the way up to the major US retaliation early in the spring of 2003.

]from Wired and Wikileaks]

"By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction."

WikiLeaks, which does not contain people bribed by Saddam specifically to lie, revealed it.

Many of the commenters on the item claim yes, Saddam really did have WMD, but the important thing is where he got them.

Kevin summarizes the important part, relevant to how $200,000 caused Ritter to refuse to report the truth:

"I fail to see how where these weapons originated makes a bit of a difference. The UN Resolution called for Iraq to account for all weapons."

dmarks said...

WD slandered both Bush and Obama: "Obama didn't go after bush for his war crimes."

There were no war crimes for President Obama to go after. Obama is an expert in such matters, unlike you with your huge grudge against Bush for daring to get more votes in Florida in 2000.

dmarks said...

As for Ritter, it seems all a terrorist has to do is drag a $200,000 check through a NAMBLA meeting in order to produce "experts" for WD to quote and defend beyond all reason.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Kennedys are now a part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. I love it.......Not that Mr.s Ford and Nixon (a President who actually EXPANDED the Great Society) were even remotely right-wing, mind you.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Hey, wd, those FALN terrorists that President Clinton pardoned were responsible for 6 deaths and the maiming of scores of other people. Certainly you should be able to knock Mr. Clinton down a letter grade for that. And what about Mr. Rich. You're always saying that the rich don't pay enough money in taxes in this country. This miserable son of a bitch (whose wife donated heavily to Mr. Clinton's campaign) was one of the biggest tax dodgers in United States history....and frigging Clinton pardoned him.............And the first President Bush, really, an F for him, too? He kept us out of Baghdad, raised taxes, and signed into law a bunch of liberal frigging legislation. You gotta give him at least a D, no?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: WikiLeaks, which does not contain people bribed by Saddam specifically to lie, revealed it.

The article you linked to is spin regarding what Wikileaks "revealed". What was found was old stuff that Saddam tried to hide and forgot about. Iraq *HAD* a WMD program, but the UN weapons inspections shut it down. What this article proves is that containment was working and the war was unnecessary.

From the article you linked to: "Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war".

Indeed. What was uncovered was small and not the grave danger bush hyped. This is precisely why bush never mentioned it. He knew he would have been called out for trying to BS us. At least bush had this small amount of common sense... common sense dmarks clearly lacks.

dmarks [quoting Wired]: The UN Resolution called for Iraq to account for all weapons.

How do they account for old drums filled with chemicals they stashed in various places and forgot about? The bottom line is containment and inspections were working and the war was unnecessary.

dmarks: And even one was a serious violation of the cease-fire, and proves the "Saddam had no WMD" claim to be a complete lie.

Only to people who were hell-bent on starting an unnecessary war.

dmarks: Ritter [refused] to report the truth...

Scott Ritter refused to report lies. I was going to Google for some information to prove you wrong about the funding for his documentary, but it isn't necessary. Seeing as Scott Ritter told the truth, it make no difference how his documentary was funded. Iraq had no WMD (lost and misplaced barrels don't count because: [1] it was insignificant [2] they didn't amount to the "danger" bush was hyping).

Give it up dmarks. Most people consider it common knowledge that bush was wrong about Iraq's WMD. Only cranks believe this story you cling to.

Will: The Kennedys are now a part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. I love it...

You're loving your own nonsensical interpertation of what I said. I never suggested any such thing.

Will: Certainly you should be able to knock Mr. Clinton down a letter grade for that.

I'm not a Clinton fan. He was a corporate Democrat that moved the Democratic party to the Right. You're the Clinton fan, and you only gave him demerits "for Monica and Yasser".

Will: those FALN terrorists that President Clinton pardoned were responsible for 6 deaths... And what about Mr. Rich...

Why I don't care...

"terrorists": Killed no one and already in prision for 19 years.

Marc Rich: Paid more than double what he owed and couldn't use pardon in defense of civil lawsuits.

FYI, a federal prosecutor investigated Clinton's pardons and "found no wrongdoing on Clinton's part".

dmarks said...

No quote needed around terrorists. They tried to kill innocent people but failed to do so. Now your blind partisanship makes you support actual terrorists.

Scott Ritter only lied later... tied in with the bribe from Saddam. And now you admit there were WMD but they didn't count because Saddam had misplaced them. Yeah give the benefit of a doubt to Saddam Hussein, an actual war criminal.

And yes the war was unnecessary.. but Bush did not start it.

Yes, Bush was wrong when he said that no WMD were found.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I'm not a Clinton fan. He was a corporate Democrat..."

Which corporations was he involved in? He always seemed like a career public-sector guy to me. As opposed to an actual corporate Democrat like Keith Olbermann who has been on the corporate payroll in a lucrative fashion.

"that moved the Democratic party to the Right"

Which is misleading unless we clarify that he moved it from being more strongly to the Left, to being a little less strongly to the Left... but always a leftist party, never crossing the center.

dmarks said...

Finally, "The article you linked to is spin regarding what Wikileaks revealed.

I don't care about the "spin", only that Wikileaks revealed that WMD were found.

"What was found was old stuff that Saddam tried to hide and forgot about."

Which is it? Tried to hide, or forget about?

The requirements were that he turn in ALL WMD, not hide them.

"What this article proves is that containment was working and the war was unnecessary."

Which is only an interpretation and an opinion (one stated much better by Will, I might add). More importantly, it proves that Iraq at the time of the invasion still had WMD. That's no "interpretation".

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Now your blind partisanship makes you support actual terrorists.

You're lying. I never said I supported them. The individuals in question served 19 years in prison. I never said their conviction was unjust.

dmarks: Which corporations was [Bill Clinton] involved in? He always seemed like a career public-sector guy to me.

He was involved with the corporations that contributed to his campaign. Bill Clinton was a "corporate Democrat" because he accepted boatloads of campaign cash from corporations and then did them favors in return.

I've explained this to you multiple times already... seriously, how dense are you?

dmarks: Which is misleading... [The Democrats are] always a leftist party, never crossing the center.

You're the one doing the misleading dmarks... or trying to. Unfortunately (for you) the facts contradict your nonsense. Clinton was an advocate of the "Third Way". If you look up "Third Way" on Wikipedia the result is "Third Way (Centrism)". The definition says, "The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies".

If you adopt right-wing economic policies you most certainly are "crossing the center".

dmarks: Scott Ritter only lied later... tied in with the bribe from Saddam.

Scott Ritter told the truth. There was no "bribe". You've utterly failed to produce any evidence of this.

dmarks: And now you admit there were WMD but they didn't count because Saddam had misplaced them.

I made no such admission. What was found was insignificant, and barrels of degraded chemicals aren't "weapons". Iraq *HAD* a WMD program but the inspections worked. The program was dismantled.

dmarks: And yes the war was unnecessary.. but Bush did not start it.

Of course he did. This is common knowledge.

dmarks: Yes, Bush was wrong when he said that no WMD were found.

He was right. I'm sure he wanted to report that WMD was found, but didn't because he knew people would have called him on his BS... like I'm calling you on your BS now.

dmarks: Which is it? Tried to hide, or forget about?

It's both, which is why I used the word "and". They hid it, then they forgot about it.

dmarks: The requirements were that he turn in ALL WMD, not hide them.

They were required by UN resolution. The UN made the resolution, so it was up to the UN to determine what to do if Iraq violated the resolution, NOT the United States. The resolution did not give the United States authorization to act if Iraq didn't fully comply.

According to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally". And he also said he thought the war was illegal.

dmarks: ...it proves that Iraq at the time of the invasion still had WMD. That's no "interpretation".

It is an interpertation... and one only an individual grasping at straws in order to justify an illegal war would make. I wouldn't classify drums of lost and degraded chemicals as "weapons".

Neither would former head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, who thinks bush's hyping of Iraq's WMD was a "grotesque distortion" and that bush should be tried for war crimes.

dmarks said...

WD quoted: "According to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan...."

Yes. Off the cuff interview answers, which were supported by no UN resolutions or actions. He does help your case, but it is weak support. He's just a UN official whose comments were at odds with the UN itself.

"You're lying. I never said I supported them."

You downplayed their actions. That's pretty bad.

"I've explained this to you multiple times already... seriously, how dense are you?"

You are the dense one. Your definition of corporate Democrat is based on a nutty conspiracy theory, and not whether or not someone (see Olbermann) is a corporate Democrat.

"Unfortunately (for you) the facts contradict your nonsense. Clinton was an advocate of the "Third Way""

Of course. The Third Way was a leftist movement that tilted a little more toward public interest at the expense of the interest of the State. But it was within the Left, make no doubt.

"Scott Ritter told the truth. There was no "bribe". You've utterly failed to produce any evidence of this."

Ritter received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Saddam's business network to produce a pro-Saddam documentary. After he was paid, he lied consistently and loudly about Saddam's WMD, and otherwise acted to protect Saddam's rule.

"Of course he did. This is common knowledge."

Common knowledge in this case meaning you personally have an idea that has nothing to do with realiy. Saddam attacked peacekeepers in the no-fly zones hundreds of times. All an act of war. All unprovoked aggression. All before Bush ordered the ground troops part of the retaliation.

If anything is "common knowledge", it is the fact that an aggressor who attacks you hundreds of times has most definitely started a war.

As for reaction to Saddam's many violations, you said "The resolution did not give the United States authorization to act if Iraq didn't fully comply."

It did, actually, The UN agreed, and let the US interpretation stand.

"He was right. I'm sure he wanted to report that WMD was found, but didn't because he knew people would have called him on his BS... like I'm calling you on your BS now."

No, he was wrong. You've already read it here, about the WMD being found. There's no BS. I refuse to lie and say there were no WMD.

"and one only an individual grasping at straws in order to justify an illegal war would make"

You are changing the subject. There's no illegal war involved here. Get back on track.

"Neither would former head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei..."

Another official making off the cuff comments entirely unsupported by UN actions. I side with the UN here, not an individual who chose to lie.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Another official making off the cuff comments entirely unsupported by UN actions. I side with the UN here, not an individual who chose to lie.

The UN does not agree. The UN DISAGREES. Every IAEA inspector (not just Scott Ritter) who spoke out on the issue said they found that Iraq's WMD program was dismantled. The IAEA is a part of the UN (Wikipedia says, "though established independently of the United Nations... the IAEA reports to both the UN General Assembly and Security Council).

David Kay: "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them".

Hans Blix: "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction". Blix also said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue... there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions 'have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere'". According to Blix Iraq was cooperating with the inspections.

Mohamed ElBaradei (regarding bush's claim that Iraq had WMD): "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (from his book "Age of Deception").

In fact, it was the determination of the IAEA as a whole that Iraq had disarmed. They issued a report on 3/2/2004 that stated, "...there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994".

No weapons inspector who actually went to Iraq and looked for WMD found any. NONE. I've never heard even one statement from a weapons inspector that said otherwise.

You're siding AGAINST the UN with your continued lies about WMD Iraq didn't have.

dmarks: Saddam attacked peacekeepers in the no-fly zones hundreds of times. All an act of war. All unprovoked aggression. All before Bush ordered the ground troops part of the retaliation.

bush had no authority to unilaterally retaliate when it was a UN resolution that was violated. The "peackeepers" you refer to were UN peackeepers. It was the purview of the UN to decide how to respond, not the US.

dmarks: You've already read it here, about the WMD being found.

I read the article you linked to. It said "skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war".

Meaning the war was unnecessary because Iraq was NOT the threat that bush hyped. The WMD program was dismantled.

dmarks: I refuse to lie and say there were no WMD.

You're refusing to tell the truth. *I* refuse to lie and say there WAS WMD.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: You downplayed their actions. That's pretty bad.

I simply stated the truth. No surprise though that you find the truth "pretty bad". You usually don't like the truth.

dmarks: You are the dense one. Your definition of corporate Democrat is based on a nutty conspiracy theory...

It isn't a "conspiracy theory", it is their STATED GOAL! From Wikipedia: "The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies".

dmarks: The Third Way was a leftist movement that tilted a little more toward public interest at the expense of the interest of the State. But it was within the Left, make no doubt.

The Third Way was a movment that consisted of conservative Democrats that titled away from the public interest by pursing economic policies that benefited the wealthy elites -- so the wealthy elites would give Democrats more campaign cash.

From Wikipedia: "The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies".

Leftwingers adopting rightwing economic policies are no longer leftwingers.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities and the Fraternal Order of Police."......This pardon was done simply to help Hillary with the Puerto Rican vote in New York and was condemned by the Senate 95-2.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

As for Mr. Rich, he was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes and was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. Seriously, wd, you're going to spin for Marc Rich now?......And just because the FEDS could prove de facto a quid pro quo doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

w-dervish said...

Will: The commutation was opposed [blah, blah, blah] ...This pardon was done simply to help Hillary with the Puerto Rican vote in New York and was condemned by the Senate 95-2.

They already served 19 years in prison. It isn't if they weren't punished.

Will: As for Mr. Rich, he was indicted in federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes and was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud...

No. I have no intention of "spinning". I simply said I didn't care. It's done and nothing can undo it. Like I said, I'm not a Clinton fan. But you are. How do you feel about this? You didn't mention it when you deducted points "for Monica and Yasser".

Who care about Monica Lewinsky? I don't know why anyone except Hillary would. I'm more pissed about all the money the Republicans spent investigating Clinton and his non-crimes. What a waste.

I wonder why you never call dmarks on all the spinning he does to justify bush's illegal war with Iraq? (a rhetorical question).

dmarks said...

"I'm more pissed about all the money the Republicans spent investigating Clinton and his non-crimes. What a waste."

All due to Clinton obstructing justice. And yes the Clintons were at the center of a large crime ring that netted numerous felony convictions.

"I wonder why you never call dmarks on all the spinning he does to justify bush's illegal war with Iraq? "

I have yet to spin to defend an event that never happened.

dmarks said...

As for the third way, "The Third Way was a movment that consisted of conservative Democrats that titled away from the public interest by pursing economic policies that benefited the wealthy elites -- so the wealthy elites would give Democrats more campaign cash.

Remember the meaning of "conservative Democrats". As Democrats, they were to the right edge of a left-wing movement. Still left of center. It was all inside the left wing.

And what your confused addled mind refers to as "wealthy elites" really means the average person. The public interest. As the Third Way Democrats were more centrist, they tilted away from the interest ot the rulers and more toward the interest of the public. Toward the 99%.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: All due to Clinton obstructing justice. And yes the Clintons were at the center of a large crime ring that netted numerous felony convictions.

Actually it was the Reagan administration that resulted in the most convictions and administration members sent to jail.

The Clinton things was a witch hunt that resulted in a failed impeachment attempt. In addition to all the taxpayer money the Republicans spent investigating him for no reason (other than the witch hunt).

dmarks: And what your confused addled mind refers to as "wealthy elites" really means the average person.

Your mind must be confused and addled. I said what I meant. It "really meant" exactly what I wrote.

dmarks: As Democrats, they were to the right edge of a left-wing movement. Still left of center. It was all inside the left wing.

From Wikipedia: "The term Third Way refers to various political positions which try to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies".

Something that is right-wing isn't within the left-wing. Only someone with an addled brain would argue that it is.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, wd, Monica Lewinsky didn't bother me one iota. I just mentioned her in that it was that that got him into trouble. The way that I see it here, when Mr. Starr asked him that question about Lewinsky, his counsel should have objected immediately and gotten it stricken (due to a lack of relevancy). That way he wouldn't have had to lie, face those perjury charges, and gotten his butt kicked later at home by Hillary.

dmarks said...

"W"D said: "Actually it was the Reagan administration that resulted in the most convictions and administration members sent to jail."

Non sequitur reference. Thanks for accepting the accurate description of the Clintons being at the center of a big crime ring and moving on to another subject.

"The Clinton things was a witch hunt ..."

It netted a dozen convicted felons. That's no witch hunt.

"In addition to all the taxpayer money the Republicans spent investigating him for no reason (other than the witch hunt)."

If Clinton had not obstructed justice and kept refusing to turn over files under subpeona, it would have been over in days. Moments. Bill and Hillary Clinton are directly responsible for the high cost by forcing it to drag out for a long time.

"It "really meant" exactly what I wrote."

What you say is pretty silly, then; you oppose basic freedoms for the average person, the non-rulers, because a tiny minority of them (those who are rich) will also have rights along with everyone else.

"Something that is right-wing isn't within the left-wing. "

And Clinton, a liberal-left President who was more to the center than some, was still leftist. And yes he embraced left-wing economics. Witness his attempt to take health-care away from the people and make controlling it the exclusive privilege of the ruling elites.