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

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 ...

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".







































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]

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 ...


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.



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]

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.

Tim

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Ghost01]

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".