He’s also despised because his policies suck. Ever think of that?

almost no

no (1) (nM
) pron. adv.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.

You can quote the dictionary! That’s kinda cute.

al·most (ôl’mM
st’, ôl-mM
st’) pron. adv.
Slightly short of; not quite; nearly

no (1) (nM
) pron. adv.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.

And, you know as well as I do that President Bush is not despised because of a handful of barely proven scandals. Clinton had more scandals than that going by breakfast, every day.

Didn t the rape and assault happen before he was president? In that case, Bush s past is also fair game. Lessee, what bad stuff did AWOL, drunk driving, coked up Bush do? Oh! The stuff I just said!

Also, so what if he isn t directly connected? He s the President, and as such is responsible of the going ons of his administration. As the plaque on his desk says  The Buck Stops Here , but then again, he probably threw that away.

There we go.

Also, I’d like to add pretty much everything Bushwacked just said.

That was kinda my point.

and I didn t mention anything about past or present.

The only examples you could think of were from Clinton’s pre-presidential past, so Bushy-boy’s past is perfectly fair game as well.

Changing ABC into CBA, isn t much of a change.

That would depend on the context.

Also, you completely ignore my second paragraph in my earlier post. Just as a captain is responsible for the actions of his crew members, or how a sergant is responsible for the actions of his platoon, so is the President responsible for the actions of his administration.

How about Bush’s convenient “military career”?
And how about the DWI that Karen Hughes said didn’t exist until some people started snooping around?
And more recently how about Flamegate and leak-authorizer-in-chief?
And how about the lobbyist that Bush claimed he didn’t know?
It seems the right is always trying to diminish Bush’s failures by claiming that he is misunderstood and mistreated by his political opponents, in this case the democrats.

The most sure sign that a republican is losing the argument is when they start to talk about Clinton.

He very narrowly escaped actual charges for several things, including rape and sexual assault.

Would you like to lay a few actual facts behind that? I thought so.

But, never was he subject to the scorn and derision of President Bush, who is in office, with almost no scandal associated with him.

Lets see,
Abramoff and if that one’s not enough here’s this?
And how about Flamegate?
But the worst has been Weapons of Mass Destruction that didnt exist and has so far gotten over 2500 American soldiers killed.

You would blame him for failures? Really? The biggest terrorist attack in US history occurred on Bush’s watch and all I’ve ever seen conservatives and this administration do it try to blame the guy who came before. If you want to give Bush credit for no attacks since 9-11, he must also bear full responsibility for 9-11 itself. And before you give me any of this “It’s really Clinton’s fault” bullshit just tell me on what day a President becomes solely responsible for what happens on his watch. Is it Day 1 or Day 101?

“He took definitive steps in the WOT.

The only definitive step he took in the WOT was declaring it.”

Very weak. The small ‘w’ WOT began a long time ago – ebbed and flowed for decades. Islamic fundamentialists brought it on full bore 9/11. Bush and a bi-partisan Congress responded.

Thats the real world.

Dugger

I didn’t mention Hillary, and I didn’t mention anything about past or present. Changing ABC into CBA, isn’t much of a change.
- 36 points for attempting to cheat, and poorly, at that.

Frank 2, Zython -1

Care to go for i ?

Didn’t the rape and assault happen before he was president? In that case, Bush’s past is also fair game. Lessee, what bad stuff did AWOL, drunk driving, coked up Bush do? Oh! The stuff I just said!

Also, so what if he isn’t directly connected? He’s the President, and as such is responsible of the going ons of his administration. As the plaque on his desk says “The Buck Stops Here”, but then again, he probably threw that away.

Also, I never specified a first name in my post. Just as much hatred is shown to Hillary as was shown to Bill. Unless, of course, Hillary was also charged with rape and sexual harassment.

Zython: 35 Frank: 0

Game, set, and match! Now king me.

Wrong!

Even if I were to accept the premise that Clinton was given a really, really hard time, and “over – investigated”, he was being investigated for things to which he was in some way connected. He very narrowly escaped actual charges for several things, including rape and sexual assault. But, never was he subject to the scorn and derision of President Bush, who is in office, with almost no scandal associated with him.

So much for magic! You make a better clown than a magician, anyway.

Frank 1, Zython = zero.

Ok, I’m not using the tiger/rock analogy from The Simpsons again, considering it would be the 4th time I’d have brought it up. In that respect, this situation is more like Bart repeatedly trying to grab the electrified cupcake. Like you, he could not learn from past experiences.

He took definitive steps in the WOT.

The only definitive step he took in the WOT was declaring it.

For the liberals, it s been nothing but  cheap shots for Bush .

Behold, as I transform your “arguement” to fit the exact opposite end of the spectrum:

For the conservatives, it s been nothing but  cheap shots for Clinton .
It’s like magic!

Why tag Bush with what is a classic issue? Your macro point is really how much actual responsibility should any Pres receive for what happens under his rule. If you ask that question, it must be asked about every president, every leader – not just, belatedly, Bush.

Bush is a leader. He is in charge. We would blame him for failures. He took definitive steps in the WOT. He gets the credit for no attacks. Thats the way the game is played. Bubba got credit for a good economy – whether it was techno bubble driven or not. reagan for the collapse of the USSR. Kennedy space program. Etc.

Its a cheap shot to change the rules for Bush.

Dugger

Apparently my pudding soaked proof differs from Pedro’s.

If only I had started using salad forks sooner, the Towers would still be standing. But hey, if G.W. had been president before 9/11, maybe…eh, what? Oops.

Of course, this all depends on how you define “terrorism.”

There are those who say waging a grossly misleading propaganda campaign, complete with images of mushroom clouds and anthrax vials, to push a fearful nation into an unnecessary war that has now cost almost as many lives as 9/11 (and that excludes Iraqis, which would push the number way, way, WAY past 9/11) and has no end in sight qualifies as “terrorism.” Some might argue that using color-coded terrorism alerts every few weeks leading right up to a national election might seem like a sort of electoral terrorism meant to drive the masses to huddle under the umbrella of the “security” president. And as we’ve seen, there have been terrorist events all over the world since 9/11, which handily proves that the sudden surge in terrorist “events” in the U.S. in election cycles is simply a coincidence and only fodder for tin foil hat conspiracy nuts. I know that when I want to analyze the patterns of terrorist alerts and arrests in the U.S. (at least those with high media visibility), the first place I look is Istanbul. Silly liberals.
But then you could call just about anything terrorism, couldn’t you?
Publishing addresses and phone numbers and calling on your audience to harrass and intimidate opponents seems like a good fit, as does calling for the selective prosecution of certain prominent media outlets for “leaking” widely available information about government operations secret only, it seems, to nursery schoolers. Say, what about threatening to revoke tax exempt status for religious institutions that speak out against the war while ignoring those that promote it and even actively work to support conservative politicians?
I mean, what is terrorism if not the use of fear to motivate a targeted population to submit to your agenda? That’s one tough “war” to win. Or is that terrorism, too? Framing the problem in such a way as to make it seem so formidable that only a commander in chief unbound by petty laws (hey, it’s war time, so no gloves, right) and who answers to none save God (ours, not theirs) can save us.