A True Leader Unlike Our Current President

[vinnieponte]

Every day Bush wakes up and figures ways out to kill more people, start new wars, shift funds from important research to big republican gala parties. While a former president who made the country better does what he know best, he leads like a leader should. Bush isn't and never will be a true leader!!!!

Annan Selects Clinton for Tsunami Effort

16 minutes ago World - AP Asia


By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan has selected former President Clinton to be the U.N. point man for tsunami reconstruction and ensure that the world doesn't forget the immense needs of the countries devastated by the Dec. 26 disaster, a U.N. diplomat said Tuesday.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard refused to confirm the appointment, but said his office would release a statement later Tuesday. Clinton's office had no immediate comment.


Annan wants to appoint a special envoy not only to focus on the cleanup and reconstruction but to try to make progress on resolving conflicts with rebels in the two worst-hit countries — Indonesia and Sri Lanka, Eckhard said.


The U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the appointment of Clinton as Annan's top envoy for the rehabilitation of tsunami-devastated countries would expand on the former president's efforts to raise money in the United States.


Soon after the disaster, President Bush named Clinton and his father, President George H.W. Bush, to head a nationwide private fund-raising effort to help countries devastated by tsunamis across the Indian Ocean to Africa. The deadly wall of water killed more than 160,000 people and displaced millions of others in 11 countries.


The two ex-presidents have been traveling throughout the country raising money, and the elder Bush said last week they hope to go to the region to illustrate the need for continued financial help from Americans. He did not say when.

[Smiles]

I guess I feel about your "president" the way you feel about mine.

It's so nice that they found something for Bill to do with all his spare time.

[vinnieponte]

smiles, tell me, what has Dubya done better for this country than Clinton? Our economy was ten times better, the country wasn't divided the way it is now. We didn't go to war on false information. More people had jobs and things were growing, and moving along positively.

[Murphy3]

I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

[Smiles]

I'm not qualified to determine the validity of your statements. I've heard the arguments from both sides, but I myself have not verified them first hand.

[vinnieponte]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

Murphy, do you make weapons for a living?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

I'd bet the raise is due to doing a good job more than anything, eh? just how did Dubya deserve thanks for your raise?

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'd bet the raise is due to doing a good job more than anything, eh? just how did Dubya deserve thanks for your raise?

Wow, it amazes me that you were able to come to that conclusion...now use the reverse with many of your complaints elsewhere throughout the political arena especially when it comes to blaming any and everything on 'dubya'.

[AnMan21]

Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.

funny, so did i....even funnier is that the government is taking less of it than they were a few years ago.

[FishForLunch]

It must be Bush's fault

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: AnMan21

funny, so did i....even funnier is that the government is taking less of it than they were a few years ago.

Hmmm...me too.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: vinnieponte
smiles, tell me, what has Dubya done better for this country than Clinton? Our economy was ten times better, the country wasn't divided the way it is now. We didn't go to war on false information. More people had jobs and things were growing, and moving along positively.

If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?

George Bush never stood on a podium and deliberately lied to everyone in America. It's that whole... what do I call it.... trustworthiness issue that kept us separated from Clinton.

[reeds]

"If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?"

Well, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , you are WRONG again..

ECONSTATS.com...Well, I could tell you what years Bush was in charge, but I think its rather obvious...

| Unemployment rate |

year %|
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408

[FishForLunch]

Here is the standard democrat answer to any question "It must be Bush's fault"

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
"If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?"

Well, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , you are WRONG again..

ECONSTATS.com...Well, I could tell you what years Bush was in charge, but I think its rather obvious...

| Unemployment rate |

year %|
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408

Wow 5.5-3.9 ==> 1.4 points better during clintons best year, 10 times better? Of course it's funny that your stats end at 1996? Wasn't clinton pres for a few more years than that?

Clinton did a great job being prez during the dot-com bubble that he had nothing to do with.

I'll stack up dubya's handling of the economy after the clinton recession and the 9/11 terrorist attack that clinton had kicked down the road anytime. It's another reason why the dems lost seats again, they just can't get people to believe their bad math.

Yup, those blue states and their IQ, .75 points is 10 times better.

[sike]

where's that IQ thread when we need it?

[capitalcity]

Roundtrip ticket to Thailand - $1134.54
New Sandals & Sunglasses - $168.91
Bottle of Coppertone SPF 36 - $7.24

9038 miles away from Hillary - PRICELESS

[madape]

no doubt the telecom reform act was huge... I'll give Clinton credit for ratifying it. It was clearly a conservative bill. As was NAFTA.

I don't think any of them would ever get passed under today's socialist Democratic party. Sadly, the Democratic party has abandoned rational, centric-thinking. Dean would prefer this country to look more like Cuba of 1970 than the America of 1999. If you truly beleive in free trade, deregularion, and an open economy, I'd suggest you switch party affiliations quickly.

[Mavdog]

There was a huge amopunt of opposition from the conservative side of the aisle to both the deregulation of the telecommunication industry, and a great deal of vocal opposition to NAFTA. I certainly never saw Perot as anything but a conservative, and he was very vocal in opposing NAFTA. Remember "that great sucking sound"?

The Democrat platform is not protectionist, it is not proposing to reinstate regulation where it has been removed (save for environmental issues), and is for open markets. Perhaps you're confusing it with the Green Party platform.

[reeds]

"Wow 5.5-3.9 ==> 1.4 points better during clintons best year, 10 times better? Of course it's funny that your stats end at 1996? Wasn't clinton pres for a few more years than that?

Clinton did a great job being prez during the dot-com bubble that he had nothing to do with.

I'll stack up dubya's handling of the economy after the clinton recession and the 9/11 terrorist attack that clinton had kicked down the road anytime. It's another reason why the dems lost seats again, they just can't get people to believe their bad math.

Yup, those blue states and their IQ, .75 points is 10 times better."

Actually, It WASNT me who said "10 times" better...But it was rather easy to prove MavsMan55 WRONG..that was the fun part..

[mavsman55]

who says?

See for yourself. The links are already there.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
who says?

See for yourself. The links are already there.

You made the statement:

If our Economy was "ten times better", then how come the unemployment rate is lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency?

which is false, the unemployment rate is NOT "lower now than it was during any of Bill Clinton's presidency". It is currently at 5.4% while it was as low as 4.0% during Clinton's term.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
There was a huge amopunt of opposition from the conservative side of the aisle to both the deregulation of the telecommunication industry, and a great deal of vocal opposition to NAFTA. I certainly never saw Perot as anything but a conservative, and he was very vocal in opposing NAFTA. Remember "that great sucking sound"?

The Democrat platform is not protectionist, it is not proposing to reinstate regulation where it has been removed (save for environmental issues), and is for open markets. Perhaps you're confusing it with the Green Party platform.

Sigh. So many comments.

First, Perot was not a conservative. Pro-choice; anti-free trade; wanted to raise taxes; cut military spending. I could go on, but I won't. In reality, he was a single issue candidate-the deficit. I am not saying he was a liberal either. There are people that are neither, you know?

Second, there were a lot of people opposed to NAFTA. If you want to break it down by interest groups, you have farmers, ranchers, small business owners. You can say they are all GOP-leaners (you'd be wrong, but you can say it). On the other side were the unions who hated it then and hate it now. It really was a miracle the damn thing passed. But it squeaked by because it was in the best interest of the country as a whole, which is how things like that work. BTW, Clinton got it passed, but the Bush administration negotiated it. There is zero doubt in my mind that Bush would have gotten it passed, too.

You use protectionist and regulation and environment in the same sentence, but all three have dramatically idfferent meaning in a political sense. "Protectionism" is a free trade concept. The democratic by and large is protectionist, because that is what the unions want. Regulation is not really related to trade, but rather the conduct of business in this country, which republicans tend to oppose and democrats tend to favor, in all areas, not just the environment.

[Dooby]

Anyway, Clinton was an average President. History will judge him as such.

He had literally no foreign policy accomplishments.

He had a good economy. However, the economy was turning south before he left office. Further, it isn't as if he helped engineer a fundamental restructuring of our nation's economy during his term or that "his" economy had any lasting effects. In contrast, look at the Reagan presidency where he slashed the tax rates and curbed inflation; if the tax rates and interest rates returned to pre-Reagan levels, there would be rioting in the streets. Other examples would be FDR, Kennedy to a degree, Coolidge, TR. Finally, I would give Clinton more credit for his economy if I could pinpoint a real decision that he made that actually led to the robust economy he had.

His abysmal first two years, led to his party getting swept out of the state houses and both houses of Congress. The man actually went on television to defend his own relevancy. While some give him credit for forestalling republican policies that some would view as harmful, the truth is he was responsible for putting those republicans in a position of power.

I think I have ranted in the past that neither Clinton nor the congress deserved credit for balancing the budget, so I will spare everyone unless someone asks me to explain it.

His saving grace is welfare reform. And even that didn't occur till very late in the game.

[vinnieponte]

CONGRATS TO ALL THE REPUBLICANS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS IS RIGHT!!!!! GO BUSH!!!! YEA DUYBA!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW LETS SEE WHATS IN STORE THE NEXT 4 YEARS, THE PICTURE SAYS IT ALL...............

[dude1394]

Not per reeds numbers.

1999 exp 4.217

[dude1394]

Vinnie should actually have a picture of Chairman Mao of Uncle Stalin. Since he's an avowed leftist, he should be a positive one.

He's just one of the hate america firsters. Sad...

[dude1394]

Thought I'd help reeds update his list.

year %|
2005 5.2 (I think I like the trajectory). Maybe we should enact a tax increase so that we can put the leftist democrat economic plan in action. I'm sure that would do the trick.
2004 exp 5.525
2003 exp 5.992
2002 exp 5.783
2001 rec 4.750
2000 exp 3.967
1999 exp 4.217
1998 exp 4.500
1997 exp 4.942
1996 exp 5.408

[dude1394]

Is this vinnie in drag??

--------------
“The inked fingers was disgusting,” Air America radio talk show host Janeane Garofalo declared on MSNBC in denouncing Republican lawmakers who, before and after the State of the Union, showed off an inked finger meant to demonstrate solidarity with Iraqi voters who dipped a finger in ink when they voted. To mock the display, Garofalo held up her hand in a Nazi salute as she predicted: “The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a Daily Show photo already, of them signaling in this manner [Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that.”

[dude1394]

A few more stats that vinnie/reeds really don't want to acknowledge..

-----
January 1997:

Unemployment rate among African-Americans = 10.8.
Unemployment rate among Latinos = 8.3.

On the other hand, there’s this:

January 2005:

Unemployment rate among African-Americans = 10.6.
Unemployment rate among Latinos = 6.1.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
A few more stats that vinnie/reeds really don't want to acknowledge..

-----
January 1997:

Unemployment rate among African-Americans = 10.8.
Unemployment rate among Latinos = 8.3.

On the other hand, there’s this:

January 2005:

Unemployment rate among African-Americans = 10.6.
Unemployment rate among Latinos = 6.1.

where to start....
the total population of black americans has increased by over 10% in the last decade, yet there are less black americans employed today than when Bush took office.
their participation rate has decreased. the number unemployed has increased, and (most directly contradicting the stat you mention above) the number not in the labor force has increased.

makes that "unemployment rate among african -americans" cited very hollow.

I think a look at the hispanic stats might be in order...

[dude1394]

This commentator gets it.

dubya the great

--------------
Underestimating Iraqi Will
By BETSY HART
Feb 5, 2005, 09:55


Wow - do I stand corrected.

As I watched news reports of the jubilant and incredibly brave voters going to the polls in Iraq on Sunday, I confess I was stunned.

I told a public audience not too long ago that I had huge questions about the upcoming election in Iraq and whether Iraqis were even interested in democracy - that maybe we in the United States were trying to push onto them something they couldn't, perhaps didn't even want to handle.

I thought the war in Iraq was, regrettably, something that had to be done. I was less compelled by the argument about the danger of weapons of mass destruction (though of course I believed reports of their existence) than I was by the need to enforce the surrender terms of the first Gulf War. I thought the principle of letting those go un-enforced for so long was a dangerous show of weakness on the part of the United States.

In any event, I was never compelled by arguments for the democratization of Iraq. It's not that I didn't think it would be great if it happened - I just thought it was sort of pie-in-the-sky thinking to hope it would happen. I figured that the best-case scenario would probably be some sort of stable, relatively Western-friendly regime there.

I was, well, cynical.

I believed tyranny to be the natural state of man, and democracy to be a really unusual aberration. I thought the terrorists would "win" and scare people away from the polls. People who, I thought, probably weren't that interested in voting anyway.

Bottom line - I also believed the press reports out of Iraq that suggested exactly that.

And then I watched the news reports of all those jubilant Iraqis, risking their lives in overwhelming numbers to vote. Giving their names to the poll watchers, knowing that could put a big bull's-eye on them for the terrorists. There they were, standing in front of television news cameras, showing us their proud faces. Exhibiting their ink-stained forefingers to show they had cast a ballot.

Talk about being "marked."

I heard news stories of women in their veils, standing in line to vote, listening to bombs going off down the street, praying that it wouldn't happen to them - but still patiently waiting to cast ballots. Would I be so brave? Um, no.

The Iraqi people showed such incredible guts in what they did and such happiness and thankfulness in doing it. They proved the world wrong.

They proved me wrong.

I know, I know. Iraq is not a secure democracy yet. But after seeing the bravery and the joy in freedom of so many of its people, even if Iraqi democracy doesn't look exactly like Western democracies, can we now doubt it's going to happen there?

On Sunday the Iraqi people gave America the biggest "thank you" in the best way we could have hoped for.

I still think that tyranny is the "natural" state of man in a fallen world. That's certainly the lesson of history. But I also think that democracy, and the hope of freedom, is more powerful in the human spirit than I ever realized _ sort of like even a small ray of light is more powerful than the depth of darkness around it, and cuts through it with its brightness.

American so-called leaders like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who immediately and publicly undermined the importance of what the Iraqi people had done, should be ashamed of themselves. The election in Iraq should have been a cause of national celebration in the United States, too _ even for liberal Democrats. (Some Democrats, like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, rightly spoke proudly about what the Iraqis had done.)

In the process, we also have to celebrate President Bush for this triumph, whatever one might think of his military objectives in Iraq. For while people like me pooh-poohed his democratic agenda there, he had the vision to see it through, to give the Iraqis a chance. When the whole world was encouraging Bush to reschedule elections because of terrorist activity _ which would have handed the terrorists a huge win _ Bush said no, the best way to beat the terrorists was to hold the elections. He was so right.

(Dozens of brave Iraqis did die in terrorist attacks on Election Day. They are patriots. And for the many American soldiers who have fallen there, our gratitude can never match what they did.)

But once again, Bush was "misunderestimated."

So were the Iraqi people and so was democracy by so many people _ including me. I am delighted to stand so corrected.

(Betsy Hart, a frequent commentator on CNN and the Fox News Channel, can be reached by e-mail at mailtohart(at)aol.com.)

[dude1394]

I have no idea what the population of a race has to do with their unemployment RATE. So I "guess" you are refuting these numbers without a link of course.

There is only one thing to say..

SCOREBOARD

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I have no idea what the population of a race has to do with their unemployment RATE. So I "guess" you are refuting these numbers without a link of course.

There is only one thing to say..

SCOREBOARD

If you have "no idea" maybe you should learn more...

The links are above, so if you believe that the stats aid you in the defense of Bush's record of improving the economic situation of black americans show them.

As I pointed out the stats do not support your assertion, in fact they show a negative trend among black americans. Fewer employed, more who have given up looking for employment, lower participation.

The average black american has NOT improved in their economic status under the Bush Administration.

THAT is the "scoreboard" dude. and its not very pretty for black americans.

[reeds]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WOW. Lets see, I beleive I have received around a 4-5% raise every year I have been employed (promotions excluded)...I guess I have to start thanking all the Presidents since Ronny...

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Murphy3
I just got a raise at work. Thank you 'Dubya'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WOW. Lets see, I beleive I have received around a 4-5% raise every year I have been employed (promotions excluded)...I guess I have to start thanking all the Presidents since Ronny...

Reeds- it's nice that you realize that Reagan's efforts and fiscal prowess have turned you to a road of good fortune. Good job.