Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Was Clinton a good president?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jajdude



Joined: 18 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Was Clinton a good president? Reply with quote

Saw the guy on the Larry King show earlier. It occurred to me how much more intelligent and well-spoken he seems than Bush, who seems to swagger as he dog paddles through the river of his own incompetence. Yet all that seems to stand out about Clinton, besides his charisma and gift of gab, is that stupid 'scandal.' I remember hearing that some Europeans thought it was a joke the way Americans made such a big deal of that. (The conservative bible thumpers came out I suppose.) Anyway I got the impression he was a lot better than the man in charge now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jajdude



Joined: 18 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely you mean PREZ dispenser?

<Swish>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The purpose of the scandal was to 1) distract him from governing and 2) smear him because he was a decent president. Not great, certainly, but decent. A 60% approval rating at the end of the second term is an achievement in itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EFLtrainer



Joined: 04 May 2005

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clinton's second term was an exercise in futility thank you very much to Republican control of the Congress and their disturbing use of the Special Prosecutor as hamstring. We will, in fact, never know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Clinton was a good prez. If only that he taught us about concensus and the middle way. He controlled the budget (though I respectfully admit that this is less in political hands than is often thought) and also could "communicate" -- a gift so few have these days where what is demanded is forthright lies and plain spokeness......a simple pretext for posture.

But I think Clinton's legacy rests (and is in that sense, GREAT) on the fact of the scandal and finally putting to rest the notion that "the king is great"/ "l'etat c'est moi". Slowly through the century, the United States has been edging towards "the leader as bureaucrat", as manager. They have been seeing their president as less presidential / special and more as a normal but exemplary person. This started early in the 20s and continued. Finally we are seeing that presidents are normal people, with normal desires and afflictions (if wanting a blow job is an "affliction"). Thank god for Clinton finally letting us see the emperor has no clothes or as Bob Dylan screamed, " even the president of the United states, sometimes has to stand naked".

President Bush is the Forest Gump confirmation of this fact. In fact Clinton can be given credit for preparing his way....

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Slowly through the century, the United States has been edging towards "the leader as bureaucrat", as manager. They have been seeing their president as less presidential / special and more as a normal but exemplary person. This started early in the 20s and continued.


Please elaborate.

From my reading, until the 30's we barely had a federal government. Starting with FDR, the presidents have been much more removed/isolated from the public.

I think you have your countries mixed up. Please elaborate on your views.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This shoulda been a POLL!~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
waggo



Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al Quaida thought he was a great President.
They formed ,organised armed ,started attacking American interests and planned 9/11 under his watchful gaze.

I think he fired a cruise missile at one of their tents once.

A gutless foreign policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Summer Wine



Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest success of Bill Clintons term was his philandering being unearthed. I understand that this might be hard to understand at first, but so long as he was hiding it and a small group knew about it. They could influence his decesions or expose his actions if he deferred.

We all know the president of the US is compromised, but try to remove the weapons that others use and maybe you have a leader instead of a puppet controlled by puppet masters.

Bill Clinton today (from an outsiders opinion) is the President that he should have been when he was in Power. It may not have been only the republicans that had him by the short and curlies when they discovered his actions. Its quite feasible that the democrats also held them before his philandering was made public.

Now what can you hold against him? He braved it through the storm and is at his strongest today, then when he was the president.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hater Depot



Joined: 29 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waggo wrote:
I think he fired a cruise missile at one of their tents once.

A gutless foreign policy.


Hm.. Bill Buckley, raging liberal that he is, called it "admirably coldblooded" while most Republicans criticized Clinton for firing the missile to distract from.. drum roll please.. the scandal investigations they were inflicting on the country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mithridates



Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hater Depot wrote:
waggo wrote:
I think he fired a cruise missile at one of their tents once.

A gutless foreign policy.


Hm.. Bill Buckley, raging liberal that he is, called it "admirably coldblooded" while most Republicans criticized Clinton for firing the missile to distract from.. drum roll please.. the scandal investigations they were inflicting on the country.


Yep - here's one.

There's some remarkably wrong stuff in those old threads from 1998. Here's one:

Quote:
Body bags? Check me if I'm wrong, babe, but the art
of killing has been elevated (due entirely to the
"contributions" of John Q. Taxpayer) to the point
where our enemies are unable to return fire. This
latest actions is more Sony
Play Station stuff, hombre...


Ah...you're wrong.

But here's something very prescient:

Quote:
Taking out Saddam was not, is not, and should not be a priority of these
actions.

You've got to grasp the greater picture in the region. A new leader in Iraq
would almost certainly be weaker than Saddam, and so Iraq wouold be weaker,
this would allow Iran to become, potentially, a regional hegemon, which is no
more in U.S. interests than Iraq becoming such a hegemon. The goal is to
keep these two about equal so that they balance each other in the region.
This is also why we assisted both countries during their war with each other.


here's the whiniest one. Whiny Republicans complaining about the missile strike and the effect on the impeachment. Whine whine.

(bold parts mine)
Quote:
Clinton to bomb Canada next! Whole world can burn if it stops Impeachment!

From: ImpeachNOW - view profile
Date: Thurs, Dec 17 1998 12:00 am
Email: "ImpeachNOW" <[email protected]>
Groups: alt.politics.usa.republican


For a complete list of email addresses to write your rep, visit
http://congress.nw.dc.us/impeach/

also see http://www.titleofliberty.com and
http://www.impeachment.org

Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121

"Wag the Dog" Redux

By ordering a military strike against Iraq on the eve of the
congressional debate on impeachment, Bill Clinton "has shown that
he is willing to kill people and endanger the lives of U.S.
servicemen as a political survival tactic," observes William
Norman Grigg, Associate Director of the National Impeach Clinton
A.C.T.I.O.N. Committee.

"In August, Mr. Clinton timed the cruise missile attacks on Sudan
and Afghanistan to knock Monica Lewinsky's Grand Jury testimony
from the headlines," Grigg observes. "Now, with the tide turning
decisively against him among the so-called moderate Republicans
in the House, and with public opinion polls showing that public
support for impeachment is mounting, Mr. Clinton has decided that
his only option is to launch another military distraction --
killing Iraqis, endangering American lives, and running the risk
of war in the Middle East
for the sole purpose of preserving his
discredited presidency."

In his address to the nation, Bill Clinton insisted that the
strike was intended to punish Saddam Hussein's refusal to
cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. However, as Major Scott
Ritter, a former member of the UN inspection team, has
documented, the Clinton Administration ignored previous acts of
defiance and concealment by Saddam, and acted to prevent
effective inspections of sites suspected of hiding weapons of
mass destruction. When Saddam unilaterally blocked UN inspections
on August 3rd -- an action comparable to the supposed provocation
for the December 16th strike -- Bill Clinton did nothing. This
prompted Major Ritter to resign in protest of Bill Clinton's
appeasement of Saddam.

As with the cruise missile strike in August, "The timing and
motivation of this attack are utterly transparent, and the
cynicism that inspired it is breathtaking," declares Grigg. Grigg
is not alone in this assessment. Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) pointed out
that "For this sort of thing &hellip; to come to a head on the
eve of an impeachment vote is highly suspicious&hellip;. Anything
is possible with this Administration.
" "Never underestimate a
desperate President," added Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY). "What
option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and
maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden
appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?"
Former Clinton political advisor Dick Morris also said that the
timing of the military strike suggested that the White House was
following the "Wag the Dog" scenario by staging a politically
motivated military sideshow.

"For someone who has expressed loathing for our military, and has
overseen the decimation of our fighting capability, he is
strangely eager to use it when it suits the demands of political
spin control," states Grigg. "In the strike against Iraq, as with
every other military venture during Clinton's watch, the
President has ignored the Constitution and bypassed the Congress.
Clearly he regards the military as his personal plaything --a
praetorian guard whose purpose is to protect his political
position, rather than serve our national interest."

Ironically, Defense Secretary William Cohen, in the immediate
aftermath of the attack, accused Saddam of "following a planned,
systematic program of obstruction and delay." "This perfectly
describes Bill Clinton's approach to defying the law and evading
the consequences of his actions," notes Grigg. "William Jefferson
Clinton is clearly a rogue president and a threat to both life
and liberty, and Congress must impeach him and remove him from
office."

Tell your congressman to vote YES on impeachment with NO DELAYS
and send the message that no president is above the law!

Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121

Email your congressman: http://congress.nw.dc.us/impeach/

To view your congressman's website for further contact
information go to: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html

National Impeach Clinton A.C.T.I.O.N. Committee
3220 N St, NW, Suite 202
Washington, DC 20007-2829

Or Call Us At 1-888-LEAVE DC To Have More Information
Sent to You By U.S. Mail

Copyright © 1997/1998 National Impeach Clinton A.C.T.I.O.N.
Committee, All rights reserved

http://www.impeachment.org
http://www.titleofliberty.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Slowly through the century, the United States has been edging towards "the leader as bureaucrat", as manager. They have been seeing their president as less presidential / special and more as a normal but exemplary person. This started early in the 20s and continued.


Please elaborate.

From my reading, until the 30's we barely had a federal government. Starting with FDR, the presidents have been much more removed/isolated from the public.

I think you have your countries mixed up. Please elaborate on your views.



I am not talking about "the federal govt" but the president. I agree the fed. government has grown exponentially (through Rep. or Dem. administrations) and this just helps argue my point. The government has become less about making laws and "governing" and more about managing and bureaucratic control of people.

The President is the head of the bureaucracy. The top dog manager. He represents the government as a corporation. With the rise of media, the influence of media in this century, Presidents have slowly been brought to their knees and seen more and more as "interchangeable". Less presidential and more like "caretakers " of the people's assets. Money managers.....

Yes, presidents are becoming more removed from the public. I agree. But I see this as not meaning they are becoming more mythic and "kingly" but more commonly and "of the people". George Bush is the perfect example. How a bumpking can become chief. Why? Because at the end of the day, the American electoral system is broke and two -- Americans really don't care. They don't anymore see a president as needing to be "presidential". They like a guy they can see themselves drinking beer with............pity. Not a great way to hire someone.....

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International