In many respects, Bush is very much the politician that Clinton was, but portrays himself as the opposite.
That statement is so ridiculous, it's almost not worth a response (but I will). Read any one of the many books written about Clinton, and you'll see at least one common thread throughout: he planned, plotted, and schemed from the time he was about 14 years of age for currying favor with others, and generally those who could help him in his next election. Maybe it was President of his high school student body, maybe the same at college, and then his elective offices in Arkansas. Always taking notes, always keeping a book on his adversaries and friends. Anyone that may be in a position to influence his next election.
GWB? To say his political life has been rather short and lacking the "grand scheme" of Bill Clinton's is to overstate the obvious.
The biggest difference between the two is that Bush is more prone to taking risks. Clinton would never have gone into Afghanistan, much less Iraq. The political costs would have been too high. Bush certainly must have known the political costs of going into Iraq, but did so anyway.
This is one of the defining characteristics of Clinton and Bush. Clinton would never,
never take a risk on anything where the outcome couldn't be assured. If he had an idea which study group research would show would not receive public support, it was finished. He wouldn't take a stand for anyhthing if he felt there was a single constituent that would be offended (of course a complete lack of core values and principles mad this somewhat easier to deal with), even if the country he was elected to serve and lead could have been made safer. Retaliate for any of the numerous terrorist attacks that occurred on his watch? I think not. Bill Clinton among his many other traits was a squid.
One of the reasons I find Bush to be such an effective leader, is that he's willing to make hard decisions and live with the consequences. He's stood firm against the U.N. where we've seen no other U.S.President do that for years. He's apologized for nothing, and on his recent trip to England went there and made his case for our presence in Iraq (U.S. security and the end of the threat posed by Saddam in the fight against terrorism), and left. Don't like it? Too bad. Leaders make tough and often unpopular decisions, and live with the consequences.
His trip to Iraq today was outstanding, and the idea that he did it for pure political gain is missing the point. While I wouldn't be surpised to seee it show up in election ads, I don't believe for a second that was the reason he went there. Read about him, or talk with people that know him, and there's a strong consensus: he's the real deal-a down to earth guy who grew up with a wealthy and famous father.
I think it was Winston Churchill who made the observation that politicians are always looking ahead to what's best for the next election, while a statesman is always looking to do what's best for the future of the country. For me, that description is as clear as any when the discussion is Clinton vs. Bush. geegee
I'm not talking about service academy underclassmen, I'm talking about captains and majors.
geegee