I'm not a fan of Bush, but libs need to understand

This is something some people need to realize. When you talk about trusting a polititian, going to war with out being attacked, and deaths during a war. I want to know how you feel about this. I thought it puts a good perspective on all of the mumbo jumbo talk I hear from liberals. Please read this and give a honest opinion wether you are a lefty or a righty.

Good Read and Think About it!

For those of us who spent time in the military, believe in our military and support the men and women of our military, read on.............
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.



Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait, There's more!

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT)
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But Wait

There's more!


JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a prett y impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me .. . as I went the other day...
to a veteran's hospital and look those men ..
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.



You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum?'

For those who don't remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA .

Beware: Half truths and propagandaerc500

Beware: Failure to point out these half-truths and propoganda.

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

jointed

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

Body count has nothing to do with the fact Bush lied from the start to get America into Iraq. Now Americans are dieing in vain and Mccain wants another 100 if needed. Again nothing to do with the troops. The soldiers have done a great job and its there politicians and leaders who have failed them. Uxal

Here is another fact. The rest of the world said the same thing about Saddam as Bush did. From their own intelligence info.

I stopped reading after the first statistic. Yes, there were 39 American soldiers killed in January, but how many dozens of Iraqi civilians were killed. That isn't an apt comparison at all. A good comparison would have been how many police officers were killed in the states.

I'm pleased with the relative success of the surge so far, but whether or not it is sustainable or actually allowed for any political reconciliation remains to be seen.

[QUOTE="Uxal"]Body count has nothing to do with the fact Bush lied from the start to get America into Iraq. Now Americans are dieing in vain and Mccain wants another 100 if needed. Again nothing to do with the troops. The soldiers have done a great job and its there politicians and leaders who have failed them. flavort

Here is another fact. The rest of the world said the same thing about Saddam as Bush did. From their own intelligence info.

That doesn't mean it was a particularly bright idea. I don't care who you are, conversative or liberal, going into Iraq was just a bad idea. Either way the initial justification is no longer relevant. We have a commitment. We broke it and we bought it.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

flavort

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

LMFAO that article is the definition of propaganda.

"Crushed the Taliban"(read towards the end). You mean the same Taliban that are now on the rise and control approx 50% of Afghanistan, is that why Condoleeza Rice just today asked for more troops to be sent to the region. :|

And the liberated Iraq, where car bombs, routine killings and a general lack of law is rife. Bush hasn't liberated Iraq, they never needed liberating in the first place. All he's done is **** it up.

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

yoshi-lnex

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

flavort

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

flavort

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

jointed

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

flavort

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

LMFAO that article is the definition of propaganda.

"Crushed the Taliban"(read towards the end). You mean the same Taliban that are now on the rise and control approx 50% of Afghanistan, is that why Condoleeza Rice just today asked for more troops to be sent to the region. :|

And the liberated Iraq, where car bombs, routine killings and a general lack of law is rife. Bush hasn't liberated Iraq, they never needed liberating in the first place. All he's done is **** it up.

Hoobinator

Car bombs and routine killings and lack of law. These have been improving greatly recently but you dont hear about it in the news. Aside the people creating these problems are doing this to the people they say they are fighting for. Makes no sense.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

jointed

Some wars are necessary...:|

Body count has nothing to do with the fact Bush lied from the start to get America into Iraq. Now Americans are dieing in vain and Mccain wants another 100 if needed. Again nothing to do with the troops. The soldiers have done a great job and its there politicians and leaders who have failed them. Uxal

Kind of like the domino effect of communism prompting us to go to vietnam? Or the missle bombardment Clinton launched which just happened to ramp up when his sexual escapades were getting front page headlines?

It also should be noted that Iraq had mountains of documentation of having WMDs. They had little to no documentation of the destruction of the WMDs. They constantly thwarted the efforts of the useless UN. They have a history of disobedience within the UN. It is not hard to believe that between their previous non-compliance and their documentation and their constant redirection and lack of compliance during the search that any WMDs could be hidden, sold, dismantled, etc.

There are a lot of issues with this conflict and a lot of things that led up to it. Many of these were set into motion long before Bush was in office. Stop blaming Bush for everything.

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

jointed

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

If you live in a fantasy world. The real world is not all happy and full of flowers. Hitler comes to mind.

Why is the topic starter trying to glorify the Iraq war? The Korean war was no good thing no question about it, but the north got support from China and the south would have been absolutely crushed if it weren't for American intervention. However there was absolutely no point in going to Iraq, absolutely no point that any sane person would accept as a reasonable answer. "They have WMD's" no "They're terrorists" no "They have oil" actually that one is true. Sooooo basically let's go to a country imprison people, kill lots of people and let soldiers take pictures of prisoners? Sigh.

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

Termite551

Because he wasn't from their party. Bias clouds judgment.

Wait hold up, the original poster said Bush went to war without being attacked? What exactly do you consider 9/11?blackngold29

Not an attack by Iraq I can tell you....

Should I point out the irony of the fact that not only is the topic creator in the Conservative Union, but he/she's also in the Christian Union. Coincidence...I think NOT.jalexbrown

Yeah being a Christian means what? I believe in God. So what? I am a conservative but am actually more of a libertarian and a classical liberal. Liberals have become more socialistic over the years. These thing dont mean that these comparisons are wrong it is something to think about. But you can write it off as a conservative Christians nonsense. I just hope you at least read it.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

flavort

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

If you live in a fantasy world. The real world is not all happy and full of flowers. Hitler comes to mind.

Don't come and talk **** about me living in some fantasy world. You're the one who comes from the United frekkin States...the western primarch of television bias and censorship.

I'm not saying that we should oppose ALL wars, but we should oppose war as a whole and try to be diplomatic. Granted there are a few wars that needs to be fought...but Iraq was not one of them.

[QUOTE="Termite551"]

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

LJS9502_basic

Because he wasn't from their party. Bias clouds judgment.

If I was going to speak for myself, I would say I love Bill Clinton for reforming welfare. But not is dealings with China.

[QUOTE="erc500"]Beware: Half truths and propagandaDracargen

Beware: Failure to point out these half-truths and propoganda.

Oki doki. Since a few people have adressed some of the issues with the first post, i'll deal with possibly the most ridiculous. The assertion that Detroit is more dangerous than Iraq. **** There are far fewer americans in Iraq than detroit so if almost similar numbers die in the two places then Iraq is obviously much more dangerous.

I think that counts as a half truth

Don't come and talk **** about me living in some fantasy world. You're the one who comes from the United frekkin States...the western primarch of television bias and censorship.

I'm not saying that we should oppose ALL wars, but we should oppose war as a whole and try to be diplomatic.

jointed

US bashing...again?

I'd like proof of this bias and censorship. You can get both sides of any issue by watching various programs. All news agencies...even the BBC is slanted.

[QUOTE="Uxal"]Body count has nothing to do with the fact Bush lied from the start to get America into Iraq. Now Americans are dieing in vain and Mccain wants another 100 if needed. Again nothing to do with the troops. The soldiers have done a great job and its there politicians and leaders who have failed them. effthat

Kind of like the domino effect of communism prompting us to go to vietnam? Or the missle bombardment Clinton launched which just happened to ramp up when his sexual escapades were getting front page headlines?

It also should be noted that Iraq had mountains of documentation of having WMDs. They had little to no documentation of the destruction of the WMDs. They constantly thwarted the efforts of the useless UN. They have a history of disobedience within the UN. It is not hard to believe that between their previous non-compliance and their documentation and their constant redirection and lack of compliance during the search that any WMDs could be hidden, sold, dismantled, etc.

There are a lot of issues with this conflict and a lot of things that led up to it. Many of these were set into motion long before Bush was in office. Stop blaming Bush for everything.

Never blamed Bush for everything. India, Pakistan, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea all have Nuclear missiles that doesn't mean we go barging in. Weapons of Mass destruction was an excuse to go into Iraq for whatever reason. If you really wanted to fight terrorism then why did Afghanistan get a half hearted invasion at best. Ill stop there.

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

jointed

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

If you live in a fantasy world. The real world is not all happy and full of flowers. Hitler comes to mind.

Don't come and talk **** about me living in some fantasy world. You're the one who comes from the United frekkin States...the western primarch of television bias and censorship.

I'm not saying that we should oppose ALL wars, but we should oppose war as a whole and try to be diplomatic. Granted there are a few wars that needs to be fought...but Iraq was not one of them.

Oh yeah the United States is so horrible. My bad. What has diplomacy done for the middle east?

Ok, why are we blaming Bush for starting the war in Iraq? The President can NOT declare war, he can recommend it, yes, but he cannot declare war...that is Congress's department, blame Congress if you want...that's all I have to say about it...and I don't agree with the war, I'm glad they disposed of Saddam, but he wasn't the one responsible for 9/11.Wren28

Congress was given false information.....

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="jointed"]

That's a bunch of useless information...it doesn't matter how many wars the democrats have started or how long it took Ted Kennedy to call someone.

Oh and I'm a British conservative.

flavort

It is something to think about actually. Useless for what? The comparisons are a good way to see how out of wackt some people are.

If you're going to waste time on making such a thread, at least TRY to be unbiased so we can have a proper discussion.

It's sickening how you glorify the Iraq war and then at the same time try to undermine WW2.

You are looking at this all wrong. It is just something to think about. I am not trying to glorify any war. I though we could all discuss how out of perspective all of this can be. Like the death tolls. People die in war and rebuilding is hard for sure. So no war is a good thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why we should oppose them...

If you live in a fantasy world. The real world is not all happy and full of flowers. Hitler comes to mind.

Don't come and talk **** about me living in some fantasy world. You're the one who comes from the United frekkin States...the western primarch of television bias and censorship.

I'm not saying that we should oppose ALL wars, but we should oppose war as a whole and try to be diplomatic. Granted there are a few wars that needs to be fought...but Iraq was not one of them.

Oh yeah the United States is so horrible. My bad. What has diplomacy done for the middle east?

I wouldn't go so far to say the US is horrible, pretty bad though

I read it and wrote it off as conservative christian nonesense :P But I'll stay in this thread nonetheless Termite551

Write it off as conservative Christian nonsense, that tell a lot about you. This not about glorifing any war, it is about comparisions between the way people look at the issues at hand.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Don't come and talk **** about me living in some fantasy world. You're the one who comes from the United frekkin States...the western primarch of television bias and censorship.

I'm not saying that we should oppose ALL wars, but we should oppose war as a whole and try to be diplomatic.

LJS9502_basic

US bashing...again?

I'd like proof of this bias and censorship. You can get both sides of any issue by watching various programs. All news agencies...even the BBC is slanted.

No...not really.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Ftq9N4fzo

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ZHVBBnM8k

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JHV6j3TRPVg

The BBC censors too...but it's nothing like Fox and the other channels in the US.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"]Wait hold up, the original poster said Bush went to war without being attacked? What exactly do you consider 9/11?LJS9502_basic

Not an attack by Iraq I can tell you....

Why is the topic starter trying to glorify the Iraq war? The Korean war was no good thing no question about it, but the north got support from China and the south would have been absolutely crushed if it weren't for American intervention. However there was absolutely no point in going to Iraq, absolutely no point that any sane person would accept as a reasonable answer. "They have WMD's" no "They're terrorists" no "They have oil" actually that one is true. Sooooo basically let's go to a country imprison people, kill lots of people and let soldiers take pictures of prisoners? Sigh.

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

Termite551

That's funny. I always thought the economy was self-righting. A stable economy under the Clinton administration does not mean that Clinton is the cause. In actuality the changes we make today will not full be realized for 10 years in some cases. I don't think Clinton was a bad president. I also don't think he was a particularly good one. White water. cigars. interns. Sounds like he was really focused on doing what's best for the nation!

There was no major crisis during his presidency. Thats not Clinton's doing. All of the problems during his tenure were self-inflicted. He had an easy run.

[QUOTE="Wren28"]Ok, why are we blaming Bush for starting the war in Iraq? The President can NOT declare war, he can recommend it, yes, but he cannot declare war...that is Congress's department, blame Congress if you want...that's all I have to say about it...and I don't agree with the war, I'm glad they disposed of Saddam, but he wasn't the one responsible for 9/11.LJS9502_basic

Congress was given false information.....

That may be, but it still isn't Bush's fault now is it? He got the same false information.

[QUOTE="Wren28"]Ok, why are we blaming Bush for starting the war in Iraq? The President can NOT declare war, he can recommend it, yes, but he cannot declare war...that is Congress's department, blame Congress if you want...that's all I have to say about it...and I don't agree with the war, I'm glad they disposed of Saddam, but he wasn't the one responsible for 9/11.LJS9502_basic

Congress was given false information.....

No...not really.

The BBC censors too...but it's nothing like Fox and the other channels in the US.

jointed

You missed the point. Unlike the UK...we have sevaral ways to obtain our information. They have different angles...not just one.

Second...youtube isn't my idea of proof.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"]Wait hold up, the original poster said Bush went to war without being attacked? What exactly do you consider 9/11?effthat

Not an attack by Iraq I can tell you....

Why is the topic starter trying to glorify the Iraq war? The Korean war was no good thing no question about it, but the north got support from China and the south would have been absolutely crushed if it weren't for American intervention. However there was absolutely no point in going to Iraq, absolutely no point that any sane person would accept as a reasonable answer. "They have WMD's" no "They're terrorists" no "They have oil" actually that one is true. Sooooo basically let's go to a country imprison people, kill lots of people and let soldiers take pictures of prisoners? Sigh.

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

Termite551

That's funny. I always thought the economy was self-righting. A stable economy under the Clinton administration does not mean that Clinton is the cause. In actuality the changes we make today will not full be realized for 10 years in some cases. I don't think Clinton was a bad president. I also don't think he was a particularly good one. White water. cigars. interns. Sounds like he was really focused on doing what's best for the nation!

There was no major crisis during his presidency. Thats not Clinton's doing. All of the problems during his tenure were self-inflicted. He had an easy run.

I disaggree, the economy getting better was largely to do with clinton and gores work. And it is pointless to ask "If clinton had a major crisis, would he have done well". The fact of the matter is, Bush went through a crisis (9/11) and failed miserably, which is why people hate him

[QUOTE="jointed"]

No...not really.

The BBC censors too...but it's nothing like Fox and the other channels in the US.

LJS9502_basic

You missed the point. Unlike the UK...we have sevaral ways to obtain our information. They have different angles...not just one.

Second...youtube isn't my idea of proof.

Unlike the UK?

Oh and watch the videos before you make stupid excuses next time.