“Says alot about that administration, doesn’t it.”

That it was concerned for the future of this country and the CIA was still there to advise Bush on Al Queda? Maybe the Clinton’s assumed all those hawks in the Bush administration could handle it. Oops.

A Clinton apologist to the bitter end, eh? Funny, I remember a bunch of Clintonistas running around lately trying to convince everyone that terrorism had been their number one priority all along. If that were true, you’d expect Clinton to say something about it first chance he gets with the new Prez. But according to Hillary when Bill gets George in a one-on-one while they’re transferring power, he only wants to talk about AmeriCorp.

I see a contradiction there. If you don’t Shep, you’re blind.

“I personally know that there is a tradition among presidents when they succeed one another.…” Yep. And that tradition is that a former president doesn’t criticize his successors publicly. Which tradition Clinton has been breaking just about every chance he can get.

“Nothing about terrorism, or the bin Laden threat?” I suppose that’s why Bush decided to ignore them as well.

Yeah, she complains about the ‘promise’ that Bush made to Bill, but she doesn’t complain about the promise Bill broke to her (you know, the one you make on your wedding day).

You’d think she’d be a little more understanding about these things.

I offered no apology for the Clintons, Bryan. I see no need for that. My point was that to criticize them for their role in fighting terrorism without applying the same standard to Bush is, well, a double standard. After all, it was on Bush’s watch that America was successfully attacked and I haven’t heard a single description of any Bush admin action to deal with al Queda that even matched what Clinton administration did. So, if you can’t offer a depiction of what Bush did that was as aggressive as his predecessor then to criticize Clinton is really much worse than blindness. It’s nakedly partisan or just plain stupid.

I haven’t heard a single description of any Bush admin action to deal with al Queda that even matched what Clinton administration did.

We’ve dropped how many bombs, killed how many al-qaeda members, have how many Taliban/Al-qaeda members in Gitmo right now, and you’re saying nothing’s changed from Clinton? Let me put it to you this way: We didn’t bomb aspirin factories or tents in the last two years and Osama is no longer the head terrorist honcho (he’s too busy trying to stay alive) and Hussein is no longer in power of anything, much less an entire country (which had Al Qaeda training camps in it and harbored one of the ‘93 WTC bombers).

And the other nations are on the short list of “straighten up, now, before we do it for you”.

Other than that, nothing much has changed.

”…nakedly partisan or just plain stupid.”

Good line. Not only does it capture your own take on the war, but the Democrats’ actions since 9-11 generally. And of course, it’s not a self-contradictory statement. They can be and often are both nakedly partisan and plain stupid at the same time.

Yes, RW, 9/11 changed quite a bit.

Sorry Bryan, did you say something about how Bush went after Al Queda in a way that Clinton didn’t BEFORE 9/11? All I saw was, “blah, blah, blah, you and the Dems suck…”. Is it possible for you follow a logical, fact-based argument and deal with questions straight-up? Or are moronic personal insults and ad hominem partisan attacks all you’ve got? Oh, that’s right, it’s a conservative thing.

Provide a logical, fact-based argument and I’ll take it up. The Bush administration hasn’t taken any action that “matched” what Clinton did. Why match failure when success is needed?

Here are the post 9-11 facts. The Taliban is dead or running, and in any case no longer controls a country. The Taliban succored Al Qaeda which has lost its Afghan training camps, and most of its financial network, and most of its leadership is dead or captured, while the remainder are running for their lives. Saddam is out of power.

We haven’t sold out to the North Koreans. On the contrary, we now may have the Chinese on our side to face down Kim Jong-Il. We have the Japanese showing some spine against North Korea too, no doubt aware that for once the US means business.

That’s all under Bush’s leadership. We actually fought back when attacked, and continue to fight back in spite of naysayers such as yourself. Thanks for nothing—get out of the way and let the grown-ups take care of things from now on.

By contrast, Clinton lobbed missiles at empty buildings and tents, when he did anything at all. He let the Saudis stymie the Khobar Towers investigation, and didn’t even do anything when the USS Cole got bombed. He ran from Somalia at the first sight of blood, after refusing to insert adequate armor into that conflict. Clinton talked a good game on Iraq, but in his one major attempt to persuade the country to take Saddam out (at a town hall meeting at Ohio State University, to which he sent his entire foreign policy team but declined to appear himself), he failed to make the case and the American people didn’t support him. So he backed down, and let Saddam get away with kicking out the UN inspectors.

I’d say the Bush strategy is totally different from Clinton’s. If it isn’t, why are so many Democrats so mad at him? Why is Bush such a “miserable failure” on the war in the eyes of most Democrats, if he’s just been doing the same thing Clinton did?

That I or RW even have to explain any of this to you shows how little you understand what’s been happening for the past two years, Shep.

I’ll take that as a “no”.

Yes, the combined empires’ armies have vanquished two moribund 3rd world countries and killed and captured some of the world’s truly despicable characters. But we haven’t been able to find the two principle villains; we’ve squandered the good will of most of the civilized world, along with our own credibility, while creating two possible US political and military quagmires costing countless treasures and immeasurable lives and, at the same time, diverted time and resources from things that would actually make us more secure.

That’s the difference in the Bush strategy: it’s short on both hubris and intelligence. That’s why the Dems are mad. They think grown-ups should be in charge.

The voters seem to prefer the grown-ups from the GOP to be in charge. That’s what’s really making the Dems mad.

If we have indeed squandered the good will of most of the world, then how have we been able to put together such a strong coalition against North Korean arms proliferation? And if your side were the grown-ups and so good at handling the world’s good will, why couldn’t your side do in eight years what it has taken Bush a little over two? Why didn’t your side build a Proliferation Security Initiative, the way our side has?

And if our enemies are as weak and feeble as you say, why didn’t your side take them on? Why did your side cut and run from Somalia, which was weaker and more feeble than both Afghanistan and Iraq? Why did your side turn a 500-18 kill victory into a humiliating defeat?

Why did your side try to buy off North Korea, when history demonstrates its untrustworthiness? Why did your side send in Jimmy Carter, whose proven failure as President should have warned you that he would fail again and harm our interests? Why did your side let South Korea triangulate relations so that we became the bad guy on the Korean Peninsula? Why didn’t your side enlist the Chinese, the way our side has done?

And why do so many on your side always take up argument against everything this country tries to do to protect itself? Why do you always make self-defense so difficult?

Sorry, Bryan, I always thought we were on the same side. Perhaps “your side’s” view of the matter is part of our self-defense problem. I’ll leave aside your depiction of history only because it’s really too silly to deserve a response and also because you still refuse to answer the essential question that got us here: why take cheap shots at Clinton for not doing what W also failed to do until 9-11 changed the political landscape. At least Clinton actually tried to kill the guy.

I’ll also point out that under Clinton’s L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P we just enjoyed one of the longest and most prosperous periods of peace in modern history. “Your side” helped to create both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden under Reagan and Bush I in their arrogant and simple-minded belief in what it takes to protect ourselves.

And, if you think North Korea demonstrates that we have the world’s support in foreign US policy, you may want to do a reality check. I suggest you read something beside American “journalism”.

Shep,

As has now become obvious, “the longest and most prosperous periods of peace in modern history” was based on a bubble economy that operated on the notion that as long as no one asked where the profits were, everything was ok. The vast majority of dot coms out there were going to go broke regardless of what happened, and when they went, those businesses that sold to them suffered, the employees of said bankrupt companies suffered, etc. Byron York wrote some excellent pieces on the fragility of the economy during the 90’s, and even a neophyte like myself was convinced that it was only a matter of time before the indexes tumbled. In addition to this, how many companies engaged in fraud during this time? Worldcom isn’t the only one who cooked the books. In short, if you want to give Clinton the credit for the growth in the economy during his time in office, you also have to blame him for its excesses.

FWIW, I think he deserves neither. He was a victim of circumstances, and exploited it like any other politician would.

No argument, Geoff (however my point here was really about the peace part). The boom-bust cycle is one of the many vagaries of the free-market (the less-well regulated, the bigger the bust). Clinton’s not-so genious was using the boom cycle and rational fiscal policy to turn around deficit spending, improve (and pay for) government services and start preparing the economy for the retirement of the baby-boomers. It’s really just doing the right thing by our kids along with some first-grade math, but, apparently, not every president can do it.

Shep;

Clinton didn’t do that, the Republican Congress did. Just compare his economic policies from his first two years to the next six. The difference is clear. Gingrich deserves much more credit than Clinton on that score.

As for peace, anyone can get that (for a while) through accomodation and inaction. Kind of like how he treated the economy…

Yes, Newt was a famously big fan of raising taxes to balance the budget.

Sorry if I don’t take your version of reality at face value. You seem to be a Clinton-hater and their perceptions just don’t jibe with reality and the measures they apply to Clinton seem in irreconcilable conflict with the standards applied to others.

Shep;

Ah, I understand now. I used to think “Clinton hater” meant someone who spun conspiracy theories about Clinton killing political opponents or running cocaine. But you’ve shown me that it really means “anyone who says anything negative about Clinton”. Or maybe it just means “I can’t dispute your facts, so I’ll dismiss you with a label instead”.

The budget wasn’t balanced by raising tax rates, but by a growing economy and limited increases in spending.

“The budget wasn’t balanced by raising tax rates, but by a growing economy and limited increases in spending.”

This is what I’m talking about, Old Guy. I’m pleased that you aren’t paranoid enough to assume that WJC killed Vince Foster. But believing that federal revenues are unaffected by tax policy doesn’t really show a firm grasp of reality. You seem way to educated and intelleigent to hold such a belief, except by way of deep personal bias.

Shep;

Could you point out where I make the claim or even implication that tax rates have no effect on federal revenues? I am claiming that the specific tax rate changes made in 1993 were a much smaller factor in balancing the budget in comparison to federal tax revenue growth from other causes and reduced federal spending growth rates.

On the larger point, I am claiming that the economic policies that lead to a balanced budget were those after the election of the Republican Congress in 1994, not Clinton’s health care plan nor his raising of tax rates. Your argument against these claims consists of, as far as I can tell, calling me a mentally disturbed person.

Allow me to go further and state that I consider the 1993 tax hikes a negative factor for a balanced budget because of their negative effects on economic growth. There are plenty of examples of where raising taxes lead to reduced revenue from the tax (the luxury boat tax comes to mind). This illustrates the point that while federal tax rates affect federal revenue, the relationship is far from linear and frequently not predictable, both of which seem to be assumptions you are making. However, my original assertion does not depend on this analysis, since it only implies a smaller effect on federal revenues than other factors, not a negative one.

Wow, sorry old guy. I missed the possibility that you could be saying that moderately increased tax rates actually reduce revenue to the government. I’m afraid I’m unwilling to argue with you because I don’t believe that we have a common understanding of the basic facts necessary to have a debate. And no, I don’t believe that people who hold such beliefs are mentally disturbed any more than I would say the two-thirds of American who believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 are mentally disturbed. For whatever reasons, they simply have a false belief.