It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


George Bush vs Bill Clinton, Republicans vs Democrats or the hypocrisy of ideological adherence

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:24 PM
What "yardstick" do people use to compare the Bush Administration to that of the legacy of President Bill Clinton? I am frequently startled to read criticisms of G.W.Bush's administration while, in the same breath, I see expressions of an "irrational" longing for a return to the days of deceit and crony-ism of the "Wild" Bill Clinton era. Ironically, many of the same charges that are, in my opinion, justifiably leveled at "Dubya" are charges that were also leveled at Clinton -- leveled, I might add, with the very same justifications.

Yes, under the Bush administration, the freedoms that have been "guaranteed" by the U.S. Constitution have been severely eroded but the same charge can be made against President Clinton's administration and, perhaps, can be considered the precursor, legislatively, that actually allows the Bush administration to dismantle the rights of the American people today. In 1996, Vice President Al Gore introduced and ...

"Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, "anti-terrorism" legislation which not only gives the attorney general the power to use the armed services against the civilian population, neatly nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (which prohibited the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement), but also selectively suspends habeas corpus, the heart of Anglo-American liberty. As he signed it into law, President Clinton attacked critics of the bill as unpatriotic: "There is nothing patriotic about pretending that you can love your country but despise your government."

The Bush administration has been accused of pandering to big business, yet the Clinton administration can be accused of the same charge. How quickly the American people have forgotten the Whitewater Scandal, the accusations of bribes from China among other financial "improprieties.

On the Iraq war, it would seem, if one listened to Bush's detractors, that it was entirely the fault of Bush's administration and the Republican Party. Yet, when one reads quotes from President Clinton and members of his administration and the Democratic Party, it becomes obvious that the disastrous war in Iraq is a blame that should be shared equally between the Bush and the Clinton "cliques".

"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 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 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.

"We 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 Sens. 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 Rockerfeller (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.

"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.

Bush didn't "fail" the United States. The Republicans AND the Democrats "failed" the people of the United States. Is it not hypocritical to support attacking Iraq and then, when no WMD are found or when the war begins to go "badly" to foist the blame entirely upon the Bush administration and the Republicans? As far as I am concerned, the blame should be shared equally.

(continued on next post)

[edit on 10/1/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit: title - ?sp]

[edit on 10/1/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

[edit on 10/1/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:27 PM
Bush's critics are keen to point out how the Bush Administration has been taking away the privacy of the American citizens through electronic eavesdropping, wiretapping and surveillance systems and programs. Yet ...

Echelon and Carnivore, two programs that monitored the electronic communications of millions of Americans during his (Clinton's) (edit by "bt) administration without authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In arguably the greatest electronic surveillance program ever created, during the Clinton Administration the National Security Agency employed a global spy system, code named Echelon, which surveilled just about every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world.

In a May 27, 1999 story in the New York Times, Americans first heard about Echelon. Two congressmen, Republicans Bob Barr and Porter Goss, who now serves as director of Central Intelligence, demanded information on a program they weren't sure even existed. However, Democrats defended Clinton's spying on Americans as a "necessary evil."

It is so easy, it would seem, to accuse President Bush of violating the constitution or of attempting to erode -- or even eliminate -- the guaranteed rights of the American people under the "guise" of being part of the war on terrorism. But, frankly, it is just as easy to make accusations against President Clinton and it's just as easy to justify those accusations.

* Violated the First Amendment by supporting censorship of the Internet and by demanding a ban on commercial advertising by cigarette companies.

* Violated the Second Amendment by signing the Brady Bill and by arbitrarily banning so-called "assault weapons."

* Violated the Fourth Amendment by restricting the right of Americans to employ encryption technology to prevent government spying on electronic communications; and by supporting legislation that will mandate national ID cards with biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints.

* Violated the Fifth Amendment by supporting and expanding the power of the federal government to seize private property without compensation under asset forfeiture laws; and by signing "anti-terrorism" legislation that sharply curtailed the right of habeas corpus.

* Violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- which reserve all power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people -- by attempting to put America's health care industry under federal control; and by numerous other executive actions and decrees.

The point that I am trying to raise here is not an effort to defend President Bush and the Republican Party by attacking President Clinton and the Democrats. What I am trying to do is confront what I consider a form of philosophical bias that I consider patently irrational. What I am trying to emphasize is the failure of both parties to demonstrate any clear philosophical difference between them. To favor one administration over the other is senseless when any clear examination of The Republican or the Democratic Party would clearly show example after example, incident upon incident, where each political party has demonstrated their total moral corruption and that both parties are philosophically bankrupt.

For one to say that they "hate George Bush" is a personal opinon but to raise Bill Clinton upon some sort of pedestal of moral philosophical idealism is, in my mind, both hypocritical and philosphically and intellectually devoid of reason. The Democrats and the Republicans, the Liberals and the Conservatives, Bush and Clinton, are nothing more than, as my fellow ATS member Intrepid puts it, "two sides of the same coin".

[edit on 10/1/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

[edit on 10/1/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:28 AM
For the purpose of Clarifiy the US laws and advancing this discussion I wish to point out a few thing.

Bill Clinton did NOT ban Automatic Weapons! Folks Automatic weapons were banned in the USA under the 1932 Machine Gun Act. Here, take a look for yourself:

Machine Gun Act

These weapons were illegal long before Bill Clinton!

What the Assult weapons ban really did was ban anything that LOOKS like an automatic weapon!

Assult Weapons Ban

It has NO Effect what so ever on Automatic Weapons, as they are covered under the 1932 Machine Gun Act.

Yes, the Assult Weapons ban is a volation of the 2ND Amendment. However, don't be fooled into believing that the end of the Assult Weapons ban means we're going to have people running around with M-16's and Uzi's.

This post is in NO WAY meant as a political statement, I'm only trying to clear up a Misconception about a US law.


[edit on 9-11-2006 by Ghost01]

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:50 AM
We now have the opportunity to see the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The midterm elections are over. The Democrats control the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, then, it's obvious that the war in Iraq is over. Yep, the troops are now busy packing their kit and their souvenirs. I suppose that they will be coming home by Christmas.

Or will the Democrats say that we just can't "up and leave" while Iraq is in turmoil....a state that was caused by the Republicans. No.....the Democrats will have to stay in Iraq so they can "clean up the mess" that the Republicans have caused. Therefore, the troops aren't coming home and, odds are, more troops will be sent into the fray.

I've seen this same scenario before. I've seen the Dems get the US into Viet Nam under Kennedy , I've seen the Dems escalate the war under Johnson and I've seen the futility of that war under Richard Nixon. It finally ended -- no thanks to either party.

I have no reason to expect that Iraq will be any different. Just like I don't see any difference in the two political parties. The only difference between the two parties is the rhetoric.....unfortunately "actions speak louder than words".

new topics

top topics

log in