Advertisement

Archive for Monday, March 27, 2006

Comparing sins

March 27, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

In his March 22 letter, Dennis Saleeby employed a tactic often used by Bush critics, i.e., limiting Bill Clinton's sins to just the Lewinsky affair. These critics may not be aware of a few facts:

¢ Clinton in 1998 launched a unilateral and pre-emptive attack against Saddam's "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs."

¢ Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in January 2001 said, "The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration."

¢ When confronted with a U.N. estimate that 567,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of sanctions, Albright in 1996 said, "We think the price is worth it."

¢ Clinton increased the number of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia from 6,340 in 1993 to 15,879 in 2000 to enforce sanctions on Iraq.

¢ Osama bin Laden in a 1997 interview with CNN mentioned the "picture of the children who died in Iraq" and said U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia were a "blatant provocation to over 1 billion Muslims." In response, he said, "Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send (Clinton) messages with no words." Al-Qaida would later bomb two U.S. embassies in Africa, bomb the USS Cole and carry out the 9-11 attacks.

If it was a lie to say Saddam had WMDs, Bill Clinton's lies contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children and gave us 9-11. President Bush's alleged sins pale by comparison.

Kevin Groenhagen,

Lawrence

Comments

lunacydetector 8 years, 9 months ago

AMEN mr. groenhagen!

it's nice you set the record straight.

we also must not forget the 800,000 -1,000,000 rwandans who died under clinton's watch (because clinton just didn't care to intervene against a bunch of black, machete wielding pot smokers who were hacking to death men, women and children)....and i thought HE was the 'black' president.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 9 months ago

In Ohio there was vocal anti war protest against Clintons decision to use bombs and missles for the same reasons as there are today. What about the innocent families?

Regarding GWs war: In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein - and I quote - "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.

In October 2002, as the U.S. Senate debated Joint Resolution 46 authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered remarks regarding his belief that the "rush to war" was "ignoring the U.S. Constitution" and that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

Among his remarks were the following statements: The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns?

As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Of course inspections ultimately proved there was no hard evidence but plenty of speculation on the GW event. There was not support for an all out invasion or occupation in 1998 or during the Reagan/Bush years.

Brent Scowcroft advised GW against invading as did former Pres. Bush. Our staunchest allies certainly were not by our side on GW's choice which has proven to produce much failure, too many deaths and at close to $1 trillion an economic disaster. The insurgents do not want the USA to control THEIR oil and natural gas or THEIR government.

Newsweek offered some info that Saddam cleaned out his weapons program as a result of Clinton's missle strike.

Bush,Condi and Rummy never had any plans to bring the troops home...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12675

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13258

Richard Heckler 8 years, 9 months ago

The fact that GW did not have this country or the world at his side makes this his war for oil.

USA oil companies were booted out of Iraq in the 70's I believe. If my memory serves me well Europeans still had a nice business arrangement. USA oil companies got the boot from Iran when the Shah was brought down. Why on both accounts is a great question for which I have no answer. The oil embargo?

Other food for thought on this matter.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/eg/nyt245.html

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8759

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8758

classclown 8 years, 9 months ago

I'm glad this war for oil is allowing me to now pay less than a dollar a gallon for gas. Just imagine what it would cost if we didn't take all of their oil. It would probably be some insane price like two and a half bucks per gallon.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 9 months ago

Imagine that. Kevin wrote a letter complaining about Clinton. How original.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Groenhagen (Arminius), as usual, deploys a selective interpretation of the truth about William the Great and the idiot Bush.

The 1998 strike was a response to perceived Iraqi attempts to assassinate the senior Bush. It was a short, carefully executed military mission that, according to even rueful Iraqi sources, was a success. Saddam Hussein later, prior to the American invasion, advised a meeting of his senior military officers that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in their arsenal to use against the Americans.

Arminius wrongly lays the blame for the estimated half-million or so dead Iraqi children onto William the Great. But it was Saddamn Hussein who stole the money from the UN sponsored oil-for-food plan, funneling it to his own uses while his people suffered and starved. Groenhagen's argument is as specious as it is false, and demonstrates more about him and his grip on reality than anything else.

We are asked to believe that OBL's motives were selfless and inspired by religious indignation over the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Could it be that OBL's hatred of America began when he drove a cab in New York City, when he writhed against the racism he encountered as such? And should we wail and knash our teeth at our perceived sins from the mouth of a criminal, an enemy out to destory us? We should care nothing about what OBL thinks or feels; we need only to hunt him down and kill him.

Which brings us to GW Bush. Karla Fay Tucker was a better person, a better Christian even, when she was executed by Bush, than Bush has ever been. A dilatory, underachieving, cowardly, cocaine-snorting, pampered rich kid who failed at everything he tried in business; rescued by his daddy's rich friends, and eventually foisted on the country by the same interests as president, so he could pander to the born-again idiots and the super-rich. The man has been a disaster as president, worse even than Warren G. Harding in the early 20s, and that takes some doing.

Groenhagen, and the rest of the knee-jerk Clinton-haters, had better get used to another coming reality. William the Great will be returning, with Hillary in '08. He will be her chief advisor and guide. Perhaps they can at least make some headway against the mess the Cowboy Idiot and his minions have visited upon us.

miker 8 years, 9 months ago

Kevin , simple thoughts that have nothing to do with what GW has wrought.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 9 months ago

Then Americans will have to face the costs. After all the thousands of America's finest have been buried, after all those artificial limbs have been attached, all those mutilated faces reconstructed, all those blind given Seeing Eye dogs, all those mental cases put on a drug regimen, all those billions of dollars added to the $8 trillion American debt, then comes the question, the important question everybody is ignoring right now: What will we have bought for this terrible price? Another corrupt dictatorship in a still-unstable Middle East. Don't forget the disability payments going out to our permanently disabled soldiers of $30,000 annually or more depending on the soldiers rank at the time. Bring the soldiers home please.

Consider the above paragraph then add to the cost of gasoline the additional corporate welfare such as tax breaks, militrary guarding pipelines around the world etc etc we might be paying $8.41 per gallon if we're lucky. Each 30 gallon tank could come to a total of $252.30.

Walking and bicycling may be far more practical whenever possible.

grimpeur 8 years, 9 months ago

Guess it's time for Kevin's annual "Never mind Bush's war, Clinton sucks!" letter. I guess this tired old litany makes everything Bush has done OK.

Bush was determined to go to war. Clinton, like Bush I, had more sense.

http://tinyurl.com/m9cpw

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Good point, derf. If you've noticed, they're setting us up to get at least acquainted with the idea of $4.00 @ gallon gas.

I'm not a Bush hater. The man is an incompetent; something I've written about for years, when he was governor of that vile state south of us. If he showed even a measure of competence as president, I would have recognized it as such. Reality is, he should have spent his life in mediocrity selling insurance or real estate in Katy, Texas.

And "rightthinker," you are way too transparent. The basis of your almost pathological dislike for William the Great is racism. You probably don't care much for minorities and women, and probably aren't equipped to compete with them. William the Great appointed more minorities and women to office during his two terms than any other American president; that is what goads your ire. If I were a better person, I'd feel sorry for you.

craigers 8 years, 9 months ago

I wonder what Hillary in office would do to our perception by some of the Muslim world, having a woman for our most powerful person in our country? And what do you think they would do?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 9 months ago

Pakistan, now the home of OBL, had a woman president not so long ago. And she was even elected, unlike the military dictator and current darling of BushCo currently running things there.

Speakout 8 years, 9 months ago

Some of the Muslim world already has had their own Women as head of State: Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and that is the majority of Muslim Countries by population.

Get a grip on the Muslim world. You guys have no idea what they are all about because you read the anti-Muslim garbage. Read some good copy.

Art 8 years, 9 months ago

Boy, you guys are a great source of morning chuckles. What a mass of brain power!

Billyflay, tragically born without upper-case, manages to peck out the message: "liberals have always been a problem for society, they are just so negative," in response to Mr. Groenhagen's marvelously positive and uplifting screed.

Rightthinker admits his dimness: "I only know you're Arminius via the lleft (probably 10 to 1 minimal on this forum) have named you." Ummmm, Rt, Mr. Groenhagen has revealed his own identity here clearly enough for all those llefties to know it. Kind of ironic that this is something you only know because a bunch of llefties took the time to explain it to you (like so many other things you have yet to absorb).

Incidentally, if you think the "lleft" outnumbers you right-wingnuts 10 to 1, do you think that's because:

a) Your radical, ignore-the-facts because we adore Bush viewpoint can only be embraced by the most extremist, addled-thinking minority?

or is it that

b) If you stand so far to the right that over 90 percent of the American public is to your left, it all looks like "the lleft" to you?

And Kevin, Kevin, Kevin... I know when you sit beneath your color poster of hero Bush in his flight suit with the sock in his crotch, you're really inspired. But come on, you're just embarrassing yourself here.

You probably don't know this, but Clinton's already been fairly well investigated. The Whitewater investigation just ended LAST WEEK. That was a great investment of taxpayers' money. In the last six years of Clinton's administration, 5,000 subpoenas were issued, compared to 5 so far in the Bush administration, even in the face of obvious crimes.

Here in the Bush administration, we're still waiting for an actual government investigation of the 9/11 attacks, not to mention about a dozen other apparent crimes tied to high-ranking administration members that will probably never be investigated.

You should focus your highly developed fact-finding skills on the real problems facing the country, Kevin, not on the last elected president we had, the one that brought you eight years of peace and prosperity.

I know you're still on a big high from the Clinton years, when you rightwingers made it your full time business to make Clinton's life hell. But you know, even then, most Americans had a lot more sense than you give them credit for. Clinton's public approval was about double Bush's. Even when he was impeached, he had much more support from Americans, people of all ages, colors and incomes.

The fact that you've dedicated your life to your little Clinton-hater web site is just so sad. It seems that character assassination is the only way you know to deal with the many things that hurt you so. I read here once where you admitted in a post that it sucks to be you, and I can really see why.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

What the left is doing regarding the war is bordering on, if not full blown aiding and abetting the enemy.

rightthinker - Are you kidding me?? I think GW would even be a bit taken back by that comment. What the left is doing is called exercising their constitutional rights to free speech.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

rightwinger - can you please expound on that last comment a bit? How did you come to the determination that those on the left may, or may not be, following the constitution? Just curious.

Fatty_McButterpants 8 years, 9 months ago

Lunacy: Clinton may not have done anything/much about Rwanda, but I don't see Bush doing anything about the 1,500 people PER DAY who are dying in the Congo due to war.

Merrill: If this is truly a "war for oil" as you claim, where are my savings at the gas pump? I keep hearing people saying that we only went to war for oil. If that's the case, where are the savings. Frankly, if everyone has decided in their minds that this is a war for oil then perhaps we should start taking some of it. They/you are going to think that anyway.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Jamesaust 8 years, 9 months ago

(While on one hand I'm almost desperate for a Democrat President soon just so Arminius can transfer his obsession to a new target) I do note one core truth in his letter - the alternative to the path chosen by this present Administration was NOT peace, love and harmony (most often expressed in false mantras such as 'let the inspectors complete their work,' 'no blood for oil,' or 'Saddam is still in his box') but rather similar, and most probably greater, human suffering. This is true regardless of the alternative path: historic death rates under Saddam projected forward, the collapse of the the Iraqi economy, civil war even with Saddam in power, or delay until a later and even more damaging war would occur.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 9 months ago

"Eschew the personal attacks and argue the facts."

Laughable. Arguing facts with the Three Stooges is like throwing sand to the tide. The Three Stooges deserve nothing but derision and personal attack.

P.S. No, I'm not above it, and yes, it makes me feel better.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Earlier this morning, I inferred that the reason many conservatives are rabid about William the Great is racism; they (conservatives) are not equipped to compete with women and minorities, while one of the major feats of William's terms was appointing more women and minorities to office than any prior president.

The silence was deafening.

Frankly, none of us should care a whit about political ideology or personalities. We, as a nation, are in one hell of a mess, not just overseas, but financially. We need to all pull together to figure out what's best to do, and then see that it gets done. Support the right candidates, not ideology, and insist they get the country back on a sound economic footing.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, in this ideologically-driven right-wing climate, objectivity and scientific rationalism are considered political ideologies. It doesn't matter what is real. All that matters is what you believe. The Bush administration has taken this to an unprecedented extreme and is the most ideologically-driven, reality-denying administration ever.

The left is also riddled with reality denial, but never has leftist reality denial had nearly the political power that right-wing reality denial now holds.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

arminius:

"There are limits to free speech. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and people can be prosecuted for slander and libel."

My father told me this when I was ten years old, tell me something I don't know.

How did Al gore, et. al yell fire?

As for the bin laden funded forum, was it held by one of the members of the bin-laden family Bush and co. helped flee the country immediately after 9/11? Last I checked, we were friends to most of the Bin Laden family.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 9 months ago

To slightly paraphrase Groucho, C-man, why would anyone join any political faction that had you as a member?

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker, conservativeman, and Arminius - The truly sad thing is that you probably believe the drivel you spout, and that there are tens of millions of more like you infecting the country.

Sociopath? The three of you probably wouldn't know a genuine sociopath if he/she bit you in the ass; which, considering the status of your mental acumen, might serve to wake you up to reality a trifle better. The simple truth is William the Great was the best president this country has had since Frankling Delano Roosevelt. Hillary Clinton is a fine woman, and will make an outstanding president.

You don't seem to grasp that the truth about what it means to be a "conservative" is coming home to roost. Used to be, conservatives hammered us Democrats with the "liberal" label, inferring that we have turned our backs on the white middle-class in favor of the poor, minorities, and women. William the Great moved our party closer to the center, stole votes from Republicans by co-opting their positions, then proved his personal integrity by sacrificing the Democratic edge in the House in order to balance the federal budget. We see now that, in essence, "conservatives" really are nothing but racists/elitists who want poor pregnant black girls to eschew abortions, but despise blacks - and all poor people - for their race and poverty.

Where has there been a Republican with such integrity? You whine like whipped dogs about a blow job in the Oval Office; I wish such could have been arranged for the Chief Cowboy Idiot before he decided to invade Iraq. Maybe a few thousand 20-year-old kids would still be alive.

And don't get bogged down in details. Learn to see the big picture. One of nuances of the Idiot's misjudgment is that we probably will be at war with Islam for the rest of our lives. Consider that, and what it will mean for all of us, for our families.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

billy - perhaps he/she is independently wealthy.

arminius - congrats, your letter has achieved number 1 on the "most active discussion" list

rightthinker - don't you thing your use of "sociopath" is a bit liberal. At least Clinton didn't endorse torture as a viable means of procuring intelligence.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker - Do you have the credentials to diagnose somebody as having BPD? Also, considering you think Hillary is going to run in '08 is indicative of your ignorance of politics.

As I continue to say, remember this name: Mark Warner

Filthy rich...yeah right. Are you really "filthy rich" rightthinker? Somebody who is filthy rich wouldn't waste their time on the LJW blog.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Many members of the GOP are even supporting Warner over Bush.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Pardon me, I meant: over Bush's potential replacement.

Curtiss 8 years, 9 months ago

Very interesting how many of you rabid Clinton-haters can't stop foaming at the mouth, yet irony is a concept that just swoops way over your heads.

You spend more time obsessing over sodomy than Fred Phelps does. You live only to find a public forum where you can attack a popular president who's been out of office for over five years

And then you complain about Bush-haters.

Truth is, anybody who doesn't hate Bush probably just hasn't been reading the news. If you don't hate Bush, you probably don't love America. (Because he sure doesn't, or he'd have a little respect for the laws of the land, and the Constitution.)

Have you forgotten that the #1 word the American public thinks of in relation to Bush is "Incompetent?" (Remember, it just barely beat out "Jerk" and "Liar.")

I guess you guys are going to be busy for some time. The number of Bush-haters just keeps growing, and growing, and growing.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Rightthinker - I don't think anything regarding Warner will fly right by me. His senior campain advisors daughter shares a bed with me. I have brunch with him every Sunday, he keeps me pretty well informed. We tend to be a little closer to the action out here in DC.

You definition of liberal resembles my mother. She is about as far over to the left as you can possibly be.

The only money I spend is my own. BTW - I never said I was a lib. As a matter of fact, I am a registered republican, I just happen to think Bush is a moron.

Curtiss 8 years, 9 months ago

Rightthinker mused:

"The thing that really perpexes me is that if GWB is such a monumental moron and idiot as so many think, how did he get re-elected?"

He didn't. He was neither elected nor re-elected.

In 2000, the only honest, certified count of the ballots showed that Gore won Florida by thousands of votes. (Which means he won the U.S.)

In 2004, the GAO, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, certified the Ohio election as so fraud-ridden that the true results could never be known. (And, of course, all that cheating and all those mistakes and all those breakdowns gave every erroneous vote to Bush, so we know he didn't win there either.)

As to how a clueless simpleton could be shoved out onto the stage to be the frontman for a bunch of conniving thieves and liars, that's probably the better question. Watch the movie "Bob Roberts," and see how easy it is.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

righthinker - when Warner was in office VA was ranked as the best managed state in the Union. I am not enamored with him at all. As a matter of fact, I have never met him. I have brunch with his senior advisor every Sunday. Sorry for the confusion.

While I am not enamored with him, I do admire him and feel he is the breath of fresh air needed right now in the executive branch. He is also not a big proponent of Hillary and Al which means he will secure a large portion of the moderate vote. Those such as myself disenfranchised by the current administration.

Arminius - not too sure what you mean. From my perspective and understanding, the democrats are smart enough not to nominate Hillary as that would be political suicide. I would be interested as to why you think the "the fix is already in" for the democrats in '08.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

derf - That web site is funny as sh*t!!

Curtiss 8 years, 9 months ago

Rightthinker:

Man, oh man. You rightwingers just can't absorb facts, can you?

Which part of the election thing don't you understand? Is it when the newspapers and TV stations hired a professional auditing firm after the 2000 fiasco, to perform a complete and honest count of the Florida ballots, once and for all? The one where, when all ballots were counted, Gore won the state by thousands of votes? The one where the thugs in the Supreme Court (hang in there, because it gets really unbelievable) ordered the vote counting STOPPED! and then appointed their boy?

Or is it that pesky GAO thing about the Ohio fraud in the 2004 election? Maybe you think the GAO is actually a left wing web site, so you discount it completely; is that it? Or when the investigative arm of Congress says it was a total sham and they've buried the evidence so we'll never know, you actually know better, right?

Come on, with all the Republican manufactured and programmed machines giving thousands of votes to Bush, with the secret ballot counts with reporters illegally kept out, with the builder of the voting machines swearing to deliver the state for Bush, with the Bush campaign manager running the state election? Aren't you completely embarrassed to open your mouth and tell me your monkey was .... elected? And you even count his 5 to 4 victory among his daddy's pals in 2000, so you call it .... RE-elected?

You'd have to believe in fairy tales to buy that one.

In fact, embarrassed doesn't cover it. I'd think you guys would just be ashamed to open your mouth and call either of these crimes against America a victory. Nobody one those elections; we all lost.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

As a Technical Recruiter I pay attention, and often request proof of a candidates track record. Especially when it comes to business development or any executive level position I may be working on. I have to agree with holygrailale on this one, Bush has an abysmal track record prior to his political career. I certainly wouldn't have submitted him to a hiring manager.

rightthinker - interesting observation regarding GW's emotions during recent press conferences. I wonder if holygrailale's assertion regarding the rumor surrounding the alleged drinking/pill-popping is a factor. People tend to me more emotional when under the influence. My biggest fear with GW is that he is out of his depth and his lack of adequate leadership throughout the past years is catching up with him, he knows he is failing once again and the pressure is too much to bare.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Could Bush be the next Nero?

More and more I think about the old lady in "Catch 22" talking to Yoserian about how all empires eventually fall.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

KBR Halliburton could be M&M enterprises :)

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

holygrailale - well put on higher education. Prior to the Federal Sector I worked as an administrator for a small proprietary college. Many times, my frustration would reach a boiling point when I watched a kid from the inner city who was trying to escape his situation be turned away because he couldn't qualify for financial aid. When Bush took office the scope of what is considered dependent and independent by the Dept. of Education changed drastically. When I went to college, you could be independent from your parents for one year and qualify as independent. By the time Bush was in office the rules stated that you had to be 24 years old to qualify, period. If you were under 18, you had to be a ward of the court or legally emancipated from your parents. This, by design kept those under 24 who either don't have a relationship with their parents or have parents who don't care, from moving forward. Most of the kids I worked with had lived on their own for years, even though they were still in their teens. The current system is set up to be advantageous to those in the higher socio-economic classes and keep those in the lower where they are. While I don't fully believe in socialism I also believe we no longer live in a true democracy. We now have a much more defined caste system and the true success story of rags to riches certainly isn't as prevalent as it once was.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Holygrailale - It says that you have to read between the lines and look at what ISN'T there. Unfortunately, this is something that many lack the ability to do.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Shouldn't have opened that door rightthinker....

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

"what's it at now, us ants have to work til june for the grasshopper, before we can keep what sweat and get ulcers for?"

billyflay - what the hell is that all about!!?? You make absolutely no sense. Instead of writing a story about a grasshopper and an ant why don't you just say you are a working class guy working your ass off so whoever is at the top can become richer....makes a lot more sense. While rags to riches is not as prevalent it is still possible. If you are an ant you can still think like a grasshopper and be prepared like an ant.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

.....if that is what you are trying to say....

holygrailale....does billy drink? His statement came across as if he couldn't focus on the keys....

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

holygrailale - thanks for the heads up on that. I like a good beer myself. You mentioned Free State brewery the other day and it made my mouth water.

I miss the people at free state too. Always a great mix of the best of Lawrence.

ben_ness 8 years, 9 months ago

Work smart not hard. I have spent many weeks in Europe with my European friends, and on business. They truly do work to live. They take long lunches, usually break in the afternoon for espresso and as a general rule have about twice the amount of PTO time we have here in the US. I have worked for international companies as a consultant and hired people in European offices. It took me a while to get use to negotiating benefits. Typical EU benefit requirements would get you laughed out of an office here in the US. I now work for a European owned company, it is much more relaxed than most American owned companies I have worked for.

As for socialized medicine. I have been in Hospitals that are products of socialized medicine...I will stick with our current status quo on that one.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.