Which Administration in the last 50 years do you think was/is the most corrupt?

[X]

which Administration was or is the most corrupt in your opinion?

You can show your work if you'd like to say why.

[General Zod]

Too hard to say. With the invention of the internets things are reported faster now and there is a lot more of it being reported. There was probably all sorts of shenanigans going on during all administrations there were comparable, but we never heard about them. So, I'm not sure exactly how to compare the administrations of the last 10 years with the administrations 40-50 years ago.

[Thor Simpson]

Are we talking quantity or quality? Cause LBJ taking part in the assassination of Kennedy could probably top it all off... but I bet Kennedy or Eisenhower had way more going on behind the scenes and "helping people out" at lower levels that the world never knew about or possibly even cared to know. Good old boys were good old boys... Kennedy was probably less so being the bit of an outsider that he was. There are a lot of good candidates here. I would say Bush would be towards the bottom of the list with regard to "corruption" in all honesty. Oh, and the LBJ thing was a joke... mostly. ;)

[X]

Are we talking quantity or quality? Or personal or political? Or corruption for personal gain or corruption that aided our enemies?

That's why I didn't specify what type. But people can say which one determined their decision.

[CRM114]

Nixon obviously.

[GFM]

Damn, can't go with Warren G. Harding :). Giving it about 10 seconds of thought, I'd probably have to go with Nixon (for obvious reasons) or Clinton (for smaller things like Marc Rich).

[DVD Polizei]

Same amount of corruption, different flavor.

[classicman2]

Clinton by a landslide. ;)

[chess]

Voted for Nixon over Bush (barely)...but I'm having second thoughts. I don't recall Nixon starting any wars under false pretenses.

Clinton wasn't much of a role model, but he's not even a contender.

Surprised Reagan gets no love here. That Iran Contra business was really scary if you understood it....but few did.

[classicman2]

Clinton wasn't much of a role model, but he's not even a contender.

Hogwash!

[chess]

Hogwash!

This must be the "glib dismissal" I've been hearing about. rotfl

Please elaborate on how the non-events of Whitewater, Monica, and Marc Rich can compete with billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, starting wars under false pretenses, using drug money to buy missles for sworn enemies, burglary, money laundering....

[MartinBlank]

Clinton is THE perfect example of what's wrong with American society today!

[hahn]

Clinton is THE perfect example of what's wrong with American society today!

:lol:

[brizz]

:lol:
Indirectly, he's exactly right ;)

[hahn]

Indirectly, he's exactly right ;)

True. I'd assumed he was talking about the man. :)

[chess]

First the "glib dismissal", and I guess now I get the famous "non response"...

[VinVega]

I see we don't have too many students of history here, considering the 2 most recent administrations are topping the list. :sad:

[classicman2]

Name and other administration during the past 50 years that tops those two.

I am challenging you, obviously a student of history, to name any others that comprare with those two. :lol:

[nemein]

As pointed out, I suspect no previous administrations have gone through as much scrutiny or have been under the microscope as much as these past two. Hopefully future admins will start to pick up on the fact they are being scrutinized more, but I suspect instead of taking that as an indicator they should act w/ more dignity they'll just make sure they bury the skeletons deeper.

[sracer]

As pointed out, I suspect no previous administrations have gone through as much scrutiny or have been under the microscope as much as these past two. Hopefully future admins will start to pick up on the fact they are being scrutinized more, but I suspect instead of taking that as an indicator they should act w/ more dignity they'll just make sure they bury the skeletons deeper.
Exactly. Watergate was a defining moment in the general public's trust of their elected officials. However, I haven't seen any "improvements" in administrations since them. It seems like the more each party has access to the media, the more arrogant they become (thinking that they have sufficient clout to spin the truth in their favor)

[Groucho]

It seems to me that with a few exceptions, you aren't going to see any objective responses. The cons are going to pick Clinton, and the libs are going to pick Bush or Nixon.

[Fielding Mellish]

Dubya has taken Nixonian "dirty tricks" and elevated it to an art form.

[classicman2]

I'm not a conservative, and I pick Clinton.

[classicman2]

As pointed out, I suspect no previous administrations have gone through as much scrutiny or have been under the microscope as much as these past two. Hopefully future admins will start to pick up on the fact they are being scrutinized more, but I suspect instead of taking that as an indicator they should act w/ more dignity they'll just make sure they bury the skeletons deeper.

But the thread title says - 'last 50 years.'

Scrutinize all you want - the two administrations that stand out are Nixon & Clinton.

Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Reagan, & George H. W. Bush - no where near the level of scandal as Nixon & Clinton. Now incompetency - well, that's a different matter. ;)

[wendersfan]

I would rank the top three to be:

1. Nixon
2. Clinton
3. Johnson

Ford and Carter would be at the bottom, and everyone else would be somewhere in the middle. I don't know enough about Ike's administration, unfortunately.

[classicman2]

Clinton - simply for the number of scandals that occurred during his administration, involving not only him but his wife, cabinet secretaries, cabinet officials, etc.

[VinVega]

I think Nixon was the most corrupt.

Maybe it was because he got caught and previous administrations had a wink, wink, nudge, nudge understanding with the press, so they didn't get caught. The whole Watergate scandal is the main reason why I think his administration was the most corrupt.

The country became more cynical after that, so the past 2 administrations, while scandal filled, don't quite rise to the same level of shock that the Nixon administration put on the country.

[B.A.]

The Catholic President - you know, because he was Catholic and everything and that's just not right.





;)

I would say either Johnson or Nixon.

[classicman2]

Why Johnson?

[paulringodaman]

1. GWB
2. Clinton, but a far second place.

[cinten]

Clinton - simply for the number of scandals that occurred during his administration, involving not only him but his wife, cabinet secretaries, cabinet officials, etc.


I know, I mean, clinton's and his friends;

Leaked the name of a CIA agent in order to silence critics

Awarded their friends no bid contracts worth billions, and kept giving them bonuses even though it's proven they overcharged

Lied about WMD's and terrorism links in order to start a war

did nothing when he was given a memo that stated "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S"

Was awarded the Presidency by the Supreme court.

Spent more time than any other president on vacation.

Has done everything he can to silence free speach.

Has condoned forms of torture and ignored the Geniva convention.

Kept information from the 9/11 investagators

Should I keep going?

[RockStrongo]

I see we don't have too many students of history here, considering the 2 most recent administrations are topping the list. :sad:

Exactly.

Nixon all the way.

Though Clinton and his bj's and his lying and his 4am pardons are up there too. Not as serious as Nixon though.

[RockStrongo]

Was awarded the Presidency by the Supreme court.

So, I guess your saying the Supreme court is corrupt.

Spent more time than any other president on vacation.

Not true...he just took it all at once and was actually working over that time. He is one of the only presidents who actually works almost all of his vacation. He just so happens to do it from home.

Should I keep going?

All of the things you listed are subjective and not all directly related to the administration.

Now, Nixon...whew....talk about corrupt....that presidency should be in the dictionary next to word corrupt.

[CRM114]

Anyone hear or read transcripts from the Nixon tapes? The man was the embodiment of corruption and abusing power.

[CRM114]

Exactly.

Nixon all the way.

Though Clinton and his bj's and his lying and his 4am pardons are up there too. Not as serious as Nixon though.

Yeah, god forbid you get a blow job. That is CORRUPT.


-rolleyes-

[RockStrongo]

Yeah, god forbid you get a blow job. That is CORRUPT.


-rolleyes-

Yeah, your right....i dont really think the actual getting a bj is corrupt (as far as politically corrupt...morally, its a different story since he was married). His lying was corrupt though.

But, I actually like Clinton....seems like a cool guy. He was no where near Nixon. Now Bill's wife on the other hand. Hmm, theres something up with her. Just my opinion.

[JasonF]

Yeah, god forbid you get a blow job. That is CORRUPT.

Only if it's done right. :eyebrow:

[nevermind]

Spent more time than any other president on vacation.


:lol: Do you speak these words (or type them) every day?






BTW, I voted Nixon.

[classicman2]

No-bid contracts are the norm in defense. There are a number of reasons for this. I'm certain we all can think of a few.


Yeah, god forbid you get a blow job. That is CORRUPT.

A typical response from a Clinton apologist.

There were a number of other scandals, other than Monica, in the Clinton administration. Why not respond to those?

[RockStrongo]

:lol: Do you speak these words (or type them) every day?


No, but he sure does seem to swallow whatever Michael Moore is shoveling.

[CRM114]

Yeah, your right....i dont really think the actual getting a bj is corrupt (as far as politically corrupt...morally, its a different story since he was married). His lying was corrupt though.


Morality is open to interpretation. Lots of couples live a loose lifestyle. Thats between the couple. As for the lying - you, he lied under oath to a question that should have never been asked under oath. IMHO of course.

[RockStrongo]

No-bid contracts are the norm in defense. There are a number of reasons for this. I'm certain we all can think of a few.

Oh so true, there are good reasons for them, but also some good reasons against them.

The "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" is not new to the Bush admin. Thats just Washington for you.

[CRM114]

No-bid contracts are the norm in defense. There are a number of reasons for this. I'm certain we all can think of a few.




A typical response from a Clinton apologist.

There were a number of other scandals, other than Monica, in the Clinton administration. Why not respond to those?

I'm not a Clinton apologist. I basically have two perspectives on his presidency: 1) the Lewinsky matter was a joke and a non-issue and 2) from 1992 to 2000, I made a lot of money and lived a very happy life all the while not seeing soldiers die by the dozen each week for little reason.

[cinten]

No-bid contracts are the norm in defense. There are a number of reasons for this. I'm certain we all can think of a few.




A typical response from a Clinton apologist.

There were a number of other scandals, other than Monica, in the Clinton administration. Why not respond to those?

The loan scandal? You know the deal where they LOST MONEY. Last time I checked he was found to have done nothing wrong.

Oh and Travelgate...where hillary fired some travel agents...oh the humanity!

I know things like missing WMDs, outing a cia agent, being best friends with the Saudi's (who are making around 1 billion more a day due to oil prices). are nothing like playing a word game....

[RockStrongo]

Morality is open to interpretation. Lots of couples live a loose lifestyle. Thats between the couple.

True, but all that I have to go on is what they have said in public. And, according to Hillary, this was not the case. They did not have an open relationship like that (at least in her public statements). He was wrong.

As for the lying - you, he lied under oath to a question that should have never been asked under oath. IMHO of course.

He put himself in that position. I dont feel sorry for him at all in that regard.

[nevermind]

I know things like missing WMDs, outing a cia agent, being best friends with the Saudi's (who are making around 1 billion more a day due to oil prices). are nothing like playing a word game....
you forgot taking more vacation than any president :sad:

[RockStrongo]

2) from 1992 to 2000, I made a lot of money and lived a very happy life all the while not seeing soldiers die by the dozen each week for little reason.

Yeah, the internet boom was great...though, Clinton didnt have anything to do with it. And, Bush didnt have anything to do with it popping.

As far as soldiers dying, it DID happen just not on the same scale. Somalia and Kosovo are just 2 examples.

Both Bush and Clinton have their good points and bad points.

[gcbrowni]

It's hard for me to imagine people voting GW or Clinton when Nixon is in there. Do those votes reflect the party base, or a lack of knowledge of just how bad Nixon was?

[cinten]

you forgot taking more vacation than any president :sad:


Wow a republican totally deflecting the issue and unable to respond in any meaningful. BIG SURPRISE...

[nevermind]

Wow a republican totally deflecting the issue and unable to respond in any meaningful. BIG SURPRISE...

:hscratch:




What are your thoughts on "able danger" ?

[nevermind]

It's hard for me to imagine people voting GW or Clinton when Nixon is in there. Do those votes reflect the party base, or a lack of knowledge of just how bad Nixon was?

Both, with a generous dash of blinding hatred.

[CRM114]

Yeah, the internet boom was great...though, Clinton didnt have anything to do with it. And, Bush didnt have anything to do with it popping.

As far as soldiers dying, it DID happen just not on the same scale. Somalia and Kosovo are just 2 examples.

Both Bush and Clinton have their good points and bad points.

I see. We give Clinton no credit for the good things, right? :lol:

And yes, the fact that it wasn't "on the same scale" is exactly the point.

[CRM114]

It's hard for me to imagine people voting GW or Clinton when Nixon is in there. Do those votes reflect the party base, or a lack of knowledge of just how bad Nixon was?

Evidently, the latter.

[RoyalTea]

he lied under oath to a question that should have never been asked under oath.so that makes it okay?

[RockStrongo]

I see. We give Clinton no credit for the good things, right? :lol:

And yes, the fact that it wasn't "on the same scale" is exactly the point.

No, I dont give President's credit or blame them for economic downturns/upturns. I also dont give Bush credit for the recovery from the recession. I also dont give GHWB the blame for the recession in 1992.

If any credit should be given, its to the federal reserve board. Basically, I believe the economy is its own engine and is not controlled at all by the government.

All they can do is massage it a little (with tax increases, reductions and so on).

My problem with Bush? He didnt stop congress from spending too much money. I wish he would return to more conservative values and cut back on the spending. Especially now, since he doesnt have to worry about being elected again.

My problem with Clinton? He took credit for alot of what the newly elected Republican congress did. For example, welfare reform.

He gets the major credit for that, but people dont realize that he HAD to sign it because it was right before the 1996 election and he wanted to come across as more moderate than liberal.

[cinten]

As far as soldiers dying, it DID happen just not on the same scale. Somalia and Kosovo are just 2 examples.



And how many died ine somalia and Kosovo total?

Kosovo - Not a single soldier killed in combat. Sixty-six died due to accidents.

Somalia - 31 killed including accidents and combat..

So about the total of a week or two under Bush.

Under one hundred is not on "the same scale" and the Iraq war

[mosquitobite]

cinten, you're deflecting on the able danger question.

[RockStrongo]

Under one hundred is not on "the same scale" and the Iraq war

Wow, you just repeated what I said in my post. :rolleyes:

My point was, that soldier's die when in battle (accidents or not).

But, under Clinton, no one was complaining about the soldier's deaths because the numbers were small (those werent the only 2 examples).

But, according to many, ANY soldier that dies is too many.

[classicman2]

The loan scandal? You know the deal where they LOST MONEY. Last time I checked he was found to have done nothing wrong.

Oh and Travelgate...where hillary fired some travel agents...oh the humanity!

I know things like missing WMDs, outing a cia agent, being best friends with the Saudi's (who are making around 1 billion more a day due to oil prices). are nothing like playing a word game....

Check again. The finding was not that the Clintons didn't do anything wrong. The evidence was simply not available (because it had been destroyed). There wasn't sufficient evidence to charge them.

BTW: I see you failed to respond to file gate - probably the most serious infranction that occurred in the Clinton White House.

Another btw: Soldier deaths in Bosnia & Kosovo were called 'training accidents.

he lied under oath to a question that should have never been asked under oath.

A federal judge in Arkansas didn't agree with you.

[classicman2]

It's hard for me to imagine people voting GW or Clinton when Nixon is in there. Do those votes reflect the party base, or a lack of knowledge of just how bad Nixon was?

Neither. What it shows, in my case at least, is that both Nixon & Clinton violated the constitution and obstructed justice.

[wendersfan]

Neither. What it shows, in my case at least, is that both Nixon & Clinton violated the constitution and obstructed justice.
:up: Exactly.

[JasonF]

cinten, you're deflecting on the able danger question.

I don't see how Able Danger has anything to do with corruption.

In any event, we spent decades prior to 9/11 building a wall between intelligence and law enforcement for some very good reasons. To be sure, with hindsight we can acknowledge that the wall was probably too high, but things always look clear in hindsight.

[nevermind]

I don't see how Able Danger has anything to do with corruption.

True. Of course I don't see how any of the following do either:

I know things like missing WMDs, outing a cia agent, being best friends with the Saudi's (who are making around 1 billion more a day due to oil prices). are nothing like playing a word game....

Which was the point I was trying to make. But he ignored me :(.

I should stick to "deflecting the issue" when it comes to goo- I mean cinten.

[X]

I would rank the top three to be:

1. Nixon
2. Clinton
3. JohnsonI agree with your three. However I'm not sure about the order of 1 and 2. It's because those two Administrations exhibited different kinds of corruption.

Nixon's Administration was corrupt in that it posed a threat to our political system and the Constitution but it also showed the strength of them by being corrected by those same systems. It took a little while but we came out of the Nixon Administration a better country with reduced foreign threats to our national security.

Clinton's corruption was more personally-oriented but it left us with lasting damage, both morally and with respect to national security. I don't see how that damage will be repaired.

[classicman2]

I've heard over and over again how Nixon posed a threat to our political system & the Constitution - mainly from Woodward & Berstein and the films.

How?

The Constitution worked just fine. Justice was served. Nixon resigned, got on a plane and returned to California, didn't call out the army in an attempt to stay in power, Ford, the VP, succeeded him in a ceremony, etc.

When the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country lies, under oath to a civil deposition & a federal grand jury, I believe that represents a threat to the Constitution.

I'm not sure either Nixon's or Clinton's problems represented a threat to national security.

I've never said Clinton didn't do good things. However, other than the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, in which taxes were raised, I can't think of any. ;)

I do believe he made a couple of open-end committments in the Balkans for the United States. I don't think that's a very good thing.

I just thought of another good thing - he put the fear of God into the Republicans - mainly Newt Gingrich. I believe we all can agree that was a good thing. ;)

[Red Dog]

Isn't this question kind of like asking who the hottest Playmate of the Year is? ;)

[cinten]

True. Of course I don't see how any of the following do either:



Which was the point I was trying to make. But he ignored me :(.

I should stick to "deflecting the issue" when it comes to goo- I mean cinten.

You don't see how outing a CIA agent in order to silence critics is bad and corupt? That's far worse than a word game.

You don't see how being in bed with the oil companies and oil suppliers while we are being gouged at the pump for 2.50 a gallon is bad? That's far worse than a word game.

One word on corruption with the bush and Cheney administration...Haliburton

You don't see how telling congress and the world "You know for a fact, that Saddam has WMD's and you know for a FACT where they are "is bad? then leading the counrty to war, killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 1840 American soldiers so for is bad? That's far worse than a word game.

[classicman2]

You don't see how being in bed with the oil companies and oil suppliers while we are being gouged at the pump for 2.50 a gallon is bad? That's far worse than a word game.

Newflash: The U. S. oil comapnies dont' control the price of crude oil. Does that come as a shock to you?

You don't see how telling congress and the world "You know for a fact, that Saddam has WMD's and you know for a FACT where they are "is bad? then leading the counrty to war, killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and 1840 American soldiers so for is bad? That's far worse than a word game.

The Bush administration never said they knew it for a fact. They said all the intelligence available indicated the presence of WMDs. The Congress, who had seen the same intelligence, seemed to agree - including both the Democratic Presidential & Vice Presidential candidates in 2004.

[nevermind]

Newflash: The U. S. oil comapnies dont' control the price of crude oil. Does that come as a shock to you?



The Bush administration never said they knew it for a fact. They said all the intelligence available indicated the presence of WMDs. The Congress, who had seen the same intelligence, seemed to agree - including both the Democratic Presidential & Vice Presidential candidates in 2004.
Cman: stop playing "word games" :grunt:

[cinten]

The Bush administration never said they knew it for a fact. They said all the intelligence available indicated the presence of WMDs. .



"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
-- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 12/6/02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html

"We know where they [WMD's] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

[nevermind]

cinten: What exactly is a 'word game'?

[mosquitobite]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

**I particularly love this one**
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[cinten]

cinten: What exactly is a 'word game'?

You know exactly what a "word game" is.

[nevermind]

On second thought - I just read this post of yours (instead of just the vacation comment jumping out at me)
I know, I mean, clinton's and his friends;

Leaked the name of a CIA agent in order to silence critics

Awarded their friends no bid contracts worth billions, and kept giving them bonuses even though it's proven they overcharged

Lied about WMD's and terrorism links in order to start a war

did nothing when he was given a memo that stated "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S"

Was awarded the Presidency by the Supreme court.

Spent more time than any other president on vacation.

Has done everything he can to silence free speach.

Has condoned forms of torture and ignored the Geniva convention.

Kept information from the 9/11 investagators

Should I keep going?

There's so many things in there that are -ohbfrank- I don't even want to know what your definition of a word game is.

[cinten]

Don't see a single "we know" in those quotes, And if you want to fill the forum with quotes about WMD's we can

[mosquitobite]

You know exactly what a "word game" is.


Is a word game like when Democrats claim Bush lied when they themselves believed the same as him before the invasion? :hscratch:

I especially love the tie-in to Al-Qaeda that Hillary made. :lol:

[mosquitobite]

Don't see a single "we know" in those quotes, And if you want to fill the forum with quotes about WMD's we can

:hscratch: perhaps because you didn't READ them?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

[RockStrongo]

Don't see a single "we know" in those quotes, And if you want to fill the forum with quotes about WMD's we can

You must not have read it very well....

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Even beyond these 2, those quotes (and many others) show that pre-Iraq war, it was a common belief that he had them. I dont know why people even argue this.

[RockStrongo]

:hscratch: perhaps because you didn't READ them?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Haha....you beat me to it.

[X]

I've heard over and over again how Nixon posed a threat to our political system & the Constitution - mainly from Woodward & Berstein and the films.

How?

The Constitution worked just fine. Justice was served. Nixon resigned, got on a plane and returned to California, didn't call out the army in an attempt to stay in power, Ford, the VP, succeeded him in a ceremony, etc.I think if Nixon had gotten away with what he was doing it would have damaged the system. Probably not much of a threat to the Constitution in regard to what he was doing with the CIA, FBI, etc. as that was more in violation of passed laws. But it would have put too much power in the Executive Branch and I don't believe that's what the Framers intended.

I believe due to personal and political corruption Clinton allowed too many of our secrets to be made available to foreign countries resulting in a lasting threat to our national security, and I believe due to his being distracted by scandals his Administration ignored real threats to our country and allies instead of handling them when they became apparent.

[cinten]

You must not have read it very well....

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Seeking, not HAS

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Found this quote online if your republican site had finished it it would have read that he was refering to the past not present as with many of those other quotes

Even beyond these 2, those quotes (and many others) show that pre-Iraq war, it was a common belief that he had them. I dont know why people even argue this.

Your right, there was enough reason to believe they might have waepons. Last time i checked it was the weapons inspectors job to find them, something bush did everything in his power to prevent. We rushed to war, without every vechile being armored, without enough supplies for our troops in order to prevent what republicans described as "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city, because they KNEW
Iraq had them and where they were.

[RockStrongo]

Seeking, not HAS

Uh, you conveniently forgot the word "developing".

Your right, there was enough reason to believe they might have waepons. Last time i checked it was the weapons inspectors job to find them, something bush did everything in his power to prevent. We rushed to war, without every vechile being armored, without enough supplies for our troops in order to prevent what republicans described as "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city, because they KNEW
Iraq had them and where they were.

We could go around and around about the Iraq war all day....ill just retire my arguments with the reports from the CIA and pretty much all other intel organizations claiming he did have them. Bush didnt lie. He was misinformed.

Should we have gone to war? No, but hindsight is 20/20 and I agreed with it at the time.

As far as the rushing into war, I think your wrong....IMO, the only thing the Bush/the Pentagon did wrong was not have a solid post war plan. Other than that, the war went very very well.

[mosquitobite]

Seeking, not HAS

Found this quote online if your republican site had finished it it would have read that he was refering to the past not present as with many of those other quotes

Your right, there was enough reason to believe they might have waepons. Last time i checked it was the weapons inspectors job to find them, something bush did everything in his power to prevent. We rushed to war, without every vechile being armored, without enough supplies for our troops in order to prevent what republicans described as "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city, because they KNEW
Iraq had them and where they were.


Ta da!!! We have our word game folks! rotfl


Last time i checked it was the weapons inspectors job to find them, something <s>bush</s> SADDAM did everything in his power to prevent.

[RockStrongo]

Ta da!!! We have our word game folks! rotfl


Last time i checked it was the weapons inspectors job to find them, something <s>bush</s> SADDAM did everything in his power to prevent.

your damn right.....im just speculating, but I bet Saddam got rid of the rest of them when he kept the inspectors out for a couple months at the end of 2002. He eventually let them back in Dec 2002 (I think I have my dates right).

[brizz]

difference between Nixon and the rest? He got caught red-handed.

[dogmatica]

The most corrupt administration is always the current one. ;)

[RockStrongo]

The most corrupt administration is always the current one. ;)

Haha....excellent point of view. It does seem that way.

[Myster X]

Haha....excellent point of view. It does seem that way.

Sad part among the American public since most folks memory can only go back so far.

[RockStrongo]

Sad part among the American public since most folks memory can only go back so far.

Yeah, except for the idiot who was interviewed about 6 months after Bush was elected and said "Well, I miss Bill Clinton, cause all I know is my 401K was doin better when he was in office". I forget which news show I saw that on. I just rolled my eyes. Some people are so dense.

[JMLEWIS1]

I selected Bush and was surprised to see he has the most votes...

Anyway, it's really hard to judge any presidency before Nixon since his really marked the first time the media used "investigative journalism" to check up on a president.

I feel like Clinton was probably more sleazy than any other President in the poll, but as far as corrupt (which I take to mean politically corrupt), I'd have to say Bush....maybe not him personally, but he surrounds himself with some pretty shady characters...

It's just my personal opinion, but I think this has been the worst administration in terms of doing things that may jeopardize the country just to line their own pockets.

[Ranger]

difference between Nixon and the rest? He got caught red-handed.
Agreed.

[MartinBlank]

I'd say Clinton, because he's part of this "if it feels good, do it...tune in, turn on, drop out.....Abby Hoffman" 1960s hippy culture, socialist mentality.

I can not, for the life of me, see and any self-respecting woman would vote for either him or his wife given the way that he's presented himself. How can a "feminist" support someone, either Clinton, given the way that he treats woman? And what kind of "stong independent" woman would put up with all of his B.S.??!?

[classicman2]

Why women voted for Clinton in large numbers - he could feel their pain.

[movielib]

Are we talking quantity or quality? Cause LBJ taking part in the assassination of Kennedy could probably top it all off...
Oliver Stone?

Oh, and the LBJ thing was a joke...
Never mind.

mostly. ;)
Hmmm...

[Foole]

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

[cinten]

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm


Great Site

http://prorev.com/bushwhacks.htm

[Thor Simpson]

Not our exact poll, but interesting on the subject:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/gov_cor

Also interesting on our candidates...
The corrupt,venal and disgusting Eisenhower didn't care how many Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Vietnamese or Koreans had to be killed by the Commies so long as his paymasters on Wall Street and in Texas got their money. His was a Presidency almost as disgraceful as Old Bush's or Carter's, and far worse than Clinton's.
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 06:37 PM
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/023198.html

The concern of Cuba towards sub-Saharan Africa was intensified at the end of 1964. The guerilla fighters fought in the Portuguese colonies of Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. In Congo Brazzaville, the new government proudly proclaimed its revolutionary sympathies. Above all, there was Zaire – where the armed revolt extended surprisingly quickly beginning in the spring of 1964. This was a threat to the survival of the <b>corrupt régime that presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had been able to impose.</B> To save the Zairian régime, <b>the Johnson administration dispatched an army of a thousand white mercenaries in a broad "covert" operation that everybody knew about – except for the US press.</B> This produced a wave of indignation, even among those African leaders who had good relations with the United States. For the Cubans, the conflict was not only an African problem. "Our view was that the problem of the Congo [Zaire] was a problem of the whole world," wrote Che Guevara.[3]

(from a socialist source. ;) )
http://socialistvoice.com/Documents/Cuba-Africa.htm

[mosquitobite]

From Foole's link
further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

Interesting facts!

[cinten]

Interesting facts!

Yes, yes they are interesting...

Coruption

"- HALLIBURTON'S NO-BID BONANZA - In February 2003, Halliburton received a five-year, $7 billion no-bid contract for services in Iraq. The Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer, Bunnatine Greenhouse, objected to the deal, saying the contract should be the standard one-year length, and that a Halliburton official should not have been present during the discussions.


- HALLIBURTON: PUMPING UP PRICES - Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq. Specifically, Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root hired a Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to supply fuel at about twice the going rate, then added a markup, for an overcharge of at least $61 million, according to a December 2003 Pentagon audit.

- HALLIBURTON'S VANISHING IRAQ MONEY - In mid-2004, Pentagon auditors determined that $1.8 billion of Halliburton's charges to the government, about 40 percent of the total, had not been adequately documented.

- MISAPPROPRIATION OF AFGHAN FUNDS - According to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," the Bush administration diverted $700 million in funds from the war in Afghanistan, among other places, to prepare for the Iraq invasion.

- INSIDER DEALING - In early 2001, chief White House political strategist Karl Rove held meetings with numerous companies while maintaining six-figure holdings of their stock -- including Intel, whose executives were seeking government approval of a merger."

[X]

I was almost tempted to respond to those earth-shaking examples of corruption but then I thought their severity could probably be summed up by how many people went to jail or needed to be pardoned for them.

[Thor Simpson]

Well, all I know is it's nice to see Bush is doing well in the polls again.

Higher than his approval rating! :up: