USNWR: Dubya Ranked #36 of 42 in Worst Presidents.....

[Grizalltheway]

Oh, I see. Now even the Global Economy is the fault of republicans? Jesus....is there ANYTHING you won't blame on us?

And, how about responding appropriately to terrorist attacks? That would have been a start. His answer was to launch 20-30 tomahawks, go get a blowjob, and call it a day.

Hell of a lot of good the Republican idea of an "appropriate response" has done us.........

No sh!t. Apparently in Z's world it's a good thing to get bogged down in two conflicts on the other side of the world for 20 years.

[Cap'n Cat]

Hell of a lot of good the Republican idea of an "appropriate response" has done us.........

No sh!t. Apparently in Z's world it's a good thing to get bogged down in two conflicts on the other side of the world for 20 years.

The ONLY thing I don't like about Z is this unwavering, undying Bush apologist sh*t. It doesn't make him look heroic or anything. Makes him look stubborn, contrarian and dumb, the latter of which he certainly is not....I don't think.

[AZGrizFan]

Hell of a lot of good the Republican idea of an "appropriate response" has done us.........

No sh!t. Apparently in Z's world it's a good thing to get bogged down in two conflicts on the other side of the world for 20 years.

Nice interpretation, Ralph.

I said no such thing. But I DO feel that had Clinton spent more time and resources attempting to defeat a developing problem, we wouldn't be where we are today. Iraq war not withstanding.

[dbackjon]

Who's Ralph???

[dbackjon]

No sh!t. Apparently in Z's world it's a good thing to get bogged down in two conflicts on the other side of the world for 20 years.

Nice interpretation, Ralph.

I said no such thing. But I DO feel that had Clinton spent more time and resources attempting to defeat a developing problem, we wouldn't be where we are today. Iraq war not withstanding.

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Clinton tried to get legislation passed to freeze the financial assets of organizations funnelling money to Al-Queda, but the Senate, led by Republican Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm refused to pass it.

Clinton ordered the CIA to use any means necessary to gather info on Al-Queda.

Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to to train Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afganistan and capture/kill Bin Laden. A military Coup ruined that chance.

Clinton negiotied a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to have joint operations against Bin Laden - the very agreement that allowed the US to use Uzbekistan immediately after 9/11 for operations in Afganistan.

In 1996, Clinton brokered a deal with Sudan to arrest Bin Laden, and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Bush's best friends in Saudi refused to cooperate.



So don't fucking spread the Rush/Hannity lies that Clinton did nothing. He did a hell of a lot, and would have probably succeeded if the Republicans were actually interested in helping AMERICA, instead of scoring political points.

[JoltinJoe]

Tom:

I've never been a Bush basher, and I held out hope for him, largely because of the extraordinarily difficult and unexpected challenges his presidency faced. As an American, I needed and wanted him to suceed.

But he failed. He has and will have no lasting achievements. And the last few months of his presidency, during which he provided over the most dangerous economic meltdown since the Great Depression, accomplished what I thought was impossible: the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Bush kept us safe since 9/11, and I'll give him credit for that. But I don't think that's enough to redeem him. We expect our presidents to keep us safe.

Let's all hope President Obama is up the challenges of cleaning up what Bush left behind.

[AZGrizFan]

Tom:

I've never been a Bush basher, and I held out hope for him, largely because of the extraordinarily difficult and unexpected challenges his presidency faced. As an American, I needed and wanted him to suceed.

But he failed. He has and will have no lasting achievements. And the last few months of his presidency, during which he provided over the most dangerous economic meltdown since the Great Depression, accomplished what I thought was impossible: the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Bush kept us safe since 9/11, and I'll give him credit for that. But I don't think that's enough to redeem him. We expect our presidents to keep us safe.

Let's all hope President Obama is up the challenges of cleaning up what Bush left behind.

You're measuring our successes in Iraq based on a jaundiced eye. Let's let history be our guide. VERY few presidents are revered immediately after their presidency (unless you're fortunate enough to be assassinated DURING your presidency and before you actually accomplish anything like Kennedy). I'm not thrilled with Bush or what he accomplished, but I still believe he'll be somewhat vindicated through the passage of time.

That's all I meant.

[ASUMountaineer]

Nice interpretation, Ralph.

I said no such thing. But I DO feel that had Clinton spent more time and resources attempting to defeat a developing problem, we wouldn't be where we are today. Iraq war not withstanding.

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Clinton tried to get legislation passed to freeze the financial assets of organizations funnelling money to Al-Queda, but the Senate, led by Republican Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm refused to pass it.

Clinton ordered the CIA to use any means necessary to gather info on Al-Queda.

Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to to train Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afganistan and capture/kill Bin Laden. A military Coup ruined that chance.

Clinton negiotied a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to have joint operations against Bin Laden - the very agreement that allowed the US to use Uzbekistan immediately after 9/11 for operations in Afganistan.

In 1996, Clinton brokered a deal with Sudan to arrest Bin Laden, and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Bush's best friends in Saudi refused to cooperate.



So don't f**k[*] spread the Rush/Hannity lies that Clinton did nothing. He did a hell of a lot, and would have probably succeeded if the Republicans were actually interested in helping AMERICA, instead of scoring political points.

All agreed. That's the problem with big government though Jon. The parties are one in the same--surely you see there's not much difference between the two or their tactics. Just like spending money now to question Rove and Miers when we know not them, nor the people from the Bush administration will be prosecuted.

I do agree it's over different types of offences. I don't see why the deal with Clinton was so huge. I do think what Bush is accused of doing is much worse than getting some head on the side. What bothers me though, is both sides did (or are doing) what they did (are doing) to gain political points. If you believe it's about JUSTICE you're an effin moron (that's a general "you" not directed at you Jon). It's all about embarrasing the other side--it was true then, and it's true now.

[AshevilleApp]

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Clinton tried to get legislation passed to freeze the financial assets of organizations funnelling money to Al-Queda, but the Senate, led by Republican Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm refused to pass it.

Clinton ordered the CIA to use any means necessary to gather info on Al-Queda.

Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to to train Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afganistan and capture/kill Bin Laden. A military Coup ruined that chance.

Clinton negiotied a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to have joint operations against Bin Laden - the very agreement that allowed the US to use Uzbekistan immediately after 9/11 for operations in Afganistan.

In 1996, Clinton brokered a deal with Sudan to arrest Bin Laden, and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Bush's best friends in Saudi refused to cooperate.



So don't f**k[*] spread the Rush/Hannity lies that Clinton did nothing. He did a hell of a lot, and would have probably succeeded if the Republicans were actually interested in helping AMERICA, instead of scoring political points.

All agreed. That's the problem with big government though Jon. The parties are one in the same--surely you see there's not much difference between the two or their tactics. Just like spending money now to question Rove and Miers when we know not them, nor the people from the Bush administration will be prosecuted.

I do agree it's over different types of offences. I don't see why the deal with Clinton was so huge. I do think what Bush is accused of doing is much worse than getting some head on the side. What bothers me though, is both sides did (or are doing) what they did (are doing) to gain political points. If you believe it's about JUSTICE you're an effin moron (that's a general "you" not directed at you Jon). It's all about embarrasing the other side--it was true then, and it's true now.

And has been since we became a nation.

[Pwns]

Sorry, but any list that has Lincoln at number 1 loses all credibility with me.

[dbackjon]

ASU Mountaineer - don't be too sure there won't be prosecutions.

And the biggest part of this is trying to find out exactly what they DID do...

[AZGrizFan]

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Nice to see you've firmly drank the koolaid, Jon. Clinton wasn't being crucified over a blowjob. He was being crucified over LYING about a blowjob UNDER OATH. If you don't have a problem with THAT, you're beyond help. Seriously.

Under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky". And yet he'd splooged all over the blue dress!!! If he'll lie about THAT, he'll lie about anything. He PERJURED himself, Jon. And that's OK with you?

[dbackjon]

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Nice to see you've firmly drank the koolaid, Jon. Clinton wasn't being crucified over a blowjob. He was being crucified over LYING about a blowjob UNDER OATH. If you don't have a problem with THAT, you're beyond help. Seriously.

Under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky". And yet he'd splooged all over the blue dress!!! If he'll lie about THAT, he'll lie about anything. He PERJURED himself, Jon. And that's OK with you?

And was any of it relevent?

Keep in denial, Z, and assure the Republican party's demise...

[ASUMountaineer]

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Nice to see you've firmly drank the koolaid, Jon. Clinton wasn't being crucified over a blowjob. He was being crucified over LYING about a blowjob UNDER OATH. If you don't have a problem with THAT, you're beyond help. Seriously.

Under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky". And yet he'd splooged all over the blue dress!!! If he'll lie about THAT, he'll lie about anything. He PERJURED himself, Jon. And that's OK with you?

I had a problem with spending taxpayer money trying and find out if Clinton got a blow job. Why are you not upset about that?!? THAT is the bigger problem, supposed "small government Republicans" trying to invade personal lives, once again, with big government.

[AZGrizFan]

Nice to see you've firmly drank the koolaid, Jon. Clinton wasn't being crucified over a blowjob. He was being crucified over LYING about a blowjob UNDER OATH. If you don't have a problem with THAT, you're beyond help. Seriously.

Under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky". And yet he'd splooged all over the blue dress!!! If he'll lie about THAT, he'll lie about anything. He PERJURED himself, Jon. And that's OK with you?

And was any of it relevent?

Keep in denial, Z, and assure the Republican party's demise...

Again, Jon. Had he had the balls to just say "yeah, I had my cock in that fat girls mouth, and I splooged all over her dress", it all would have gone away. He chose to lie. The fact that that doesn't seem to bother you koolaid drinkin' liberals proves you're beyond help.

[AZGrizFan]

Nice to see you've firmly drank the koolaid, Jon. Clinton wasn't being crucified over a blowjob. He was being crucified over LYING about a blowjob UNDER OATH. If you don't have a problem with THAT, you're beyond help. Seriously.

Under oath: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky". And yet he'd splooged all over the blue dress!!! If he'll lie about THAT, he'll lie about anything. He PERJURED himself, Jon. And that's OK with you?

I had a problem with spending taxpayer money trying and find out if Clinton got a blow job. Why are you not upset about that?!? THAT is the bigger problem, supposed "small government Republicans" trying to invade personal lives, once again, with big government.

Sure, because just like athletes, sexual harassment doesn't apply to the president, right?

[ASUMountaineer]

I had a problem with spending taxpayer money trying and find out if Clinton got a blow job. Why are you not upset about that?!? THAT is the bigger problem, supposed "small government Republicans" trying to invade personal lives, once again, with big government.

Sure, because just like athletes, sexual harassment doesn't apply to the president, right?

You can't rape the willing and she wasn't pressing charges. I never saw Lewinski v. Clinton. Had that happened, you'd have my attention. Otherwise, I think you're reaching.

[AZGrizFan]

Sure, because just like athletes, sexual harassment doesn't apply to the president, right?

You can't rape the willing and she wasn't pressing charges. I never saw Lewinski v. Clinton. Had that happened, you'd have my attention. Otherwise, I think you're reaching.

Oh. Nice logic.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

to inject a little sanity to this:

as a guy who studied political history as his primary subject in college...

you cannot judge a president until at LEAST 10 years after their administration. so it's too soon on Bush. Objectively speaking, I suspect he will be a bottom 10 president. If you look at his legacy it is at best one of intense polarization and politicization. His policy of pre-emptive war (the thing his presidency will be remembered for) is something that will take time to judge.

to my way of thinking:
top 5: Washington, FDR, Lincoln, Truman, LBJ
bottom 5: Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, Hoover, Fillmore (at this point I'd put Bush in there - but again, it's too soon)

[Gil Dobie]

If you look at his legacy it is at best one of intense polarization and politicization.

Me thinks Gore and the Clinton's didn't help the situation either.

[Ibanez]

Nice interpretation, Ralph.

I said no such thing. But I DO feel that had Clinton spent more time and resources attempting to defeat a developing problem, we wouldn't be where we are today. Iraq war not withstanding.

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Clinton tried to get legislation passed to freeze the financial assets of organizations funnelling money to Al-Queda, but the Senate, led by Republican Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm refused to pass it.

Clinton ordered the CIA to use any means necessary to gather info on Al-Queda.

Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to to train Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afganistan and capture/kill Bin Laden. A military Coup ruined that chance.

Clinton negiotied a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to have joint operations against Bin Laden - the very agreement that allowed the US to use Uzbekistan immediately after 9/11 for operations in Afganistan.

In 1996, Clinton brokered a deal with Sudan to arrest Bin Laden, and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Bush's best friends in Saudi refused to cooperate.



So don't f**k[*] spread the Rush/Hannity lies that Clinton did nothing. He did a hell of a lot, and would have probably succeeded if the Republicans were actually interested in helping AMERICA, instead of scoring political points.

If I recall, and maybe it's been said. But, Clinton was impeached for Lying under the Oath, not getting a hummer. Maybe you want your Leader to be lying under the oath, but I do not.

[Wedgebuster]

let's see - at the time, congress, instead of focusing on National Security, was busy spending $50 million to crucify Clinton over a blow job.

When he did fire cruise missiles in Afganistan, missing Bin Laden by two hours, he was accused of doing it SOLELY to divert attention from the Lewinsky.

Clinton tried to get legislation passed to freeze the financial assets of organizations funnelling money to Al-Queda, but the Senate, led by Republican Banking Committee Chair Phil Gramm refused to pass it.

Clinton ordered the CIA to use any means necessary to gather info on Al-Queda.

Clinton had an agreement with Pakistan to to train Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afganistan and capture/kill Bin Laden. A military Coup ruined that chance.

Clinton negiotied a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to have joint operations against Bin Laden - the very agreement that allowed the US to use Uzbekistan immediately after 9/11 for operations in Afganistan.

In 1996, Clinton brokered a deal with Sudan to arrest Bin Laden, and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. Bush's best friends in Saudi refused to cooperate.



So don't f**k[*] spread the Rush/Hannity lies that Clinton did nothing. He did a hell of a lot, and would have probably succeeded if the Republicans were actually interested in helping AMERICA, instead of scoring political points.

If I recall, and maybe it's been said. But, Clinton was impeached for Lying under the Oath, not getting a hummer. Maybe you want your Leader to be lying under the oath, but I do not.

Lying is lying, under oath or not.

Guess you felt better listening to lies from a President who would have never spoken under oath, one who would send our kids off to war in the wrong country, based entirely on lies.

Yep, I guess the blood of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others as a result of bald faced lies is not a crime.

Let's see, what was it Clinton was supposedly lying about?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

sigh... clinton? really? a middling president at best. a guy who could have been great but had his legacy tainted by his own personal foibles. he isn't the first president to have this happen to him... but that doesn't really excuse a man of his political gifts (and even his opponents have to admit he has them) wasting them because he couldn't keep it in his trousers.

[ASUMountaineer]

You can't rape the willing and she wasn't pressing charges. I never saw Lewinski v. Clinton. Had that happened, you'd have my attention. Otherwise, I think you're reaching.

Oh. Nice logic.

So, how do you explain her interviews where she never claimed to be sexually harassed? I'm just saying Tom, think about it. Clinton was much more conservative than Bush ever could have been. Bush considered suspending First Amendment rights, he drafted the PATRIOT Act, he spied and American citizens, started an illegal war, and you're telling me that's better than lying about getting a blow job? Are you effin kidding me?

Sure, he lied under oath (Bush never would speak under oath), but he should have never been put into that position. What I find the most humorous is that he was impeached for lying under oath, not abuse of power or giving her classified information. Ken Starr wanted fame, the "Republicans" in office wanted to take Clinton down, and for what? Political points. They weren't seeking justice and you know it. If you think Newt "it's ok if I cheat on my wife and lie about it" Gingrich and his cronies were just seeking justice and to protect Monica Lewinski--you're a dumbass.

[D1B]

Laughing my ass off at AZ baiting you knuckleheads.

Remember last fall, right when it became obvious that McFukchead was gonna get his melanoma-freckled, white ass kicked by Obama? AZ's then excuse - "If Obama didn't have Bush and his piss poor record, McCain would win in a landslide!" (or something to that effect.... )