jsanders said:
Sorry Kraj,
You were week on a couple of points
Sorry I missed those
FoFa, make no mistake I have no problem with a differing opinion, but in some you simply have your facts wrong.
FoFa said:
Pretty much heading down under Clinton after about the 4-5 year mark. Of course the Iraq/Afganistan things don't help, but then you have to expect that when in military conflicts.
A brief look at historical data for the Down Jones industrial average shows an overall climb throughout the 1990s that ended in 2000 when the overvalued US economy slipped to a more reasonalbe level and plataeud. After Bush took office, the Dow took a big downward spike then recovered, was bitch-slapped by 9/11, recovered again, and then spent two years on a major decline until 2003.
It is a fact that economies progress in cycles and no individual can control it. The President's job, therefore, is to institute policies that help to lessen the severity of the cycle. Under Bush, the economy has been very volatile.
Futhermore, contrary to your belief military campaigns tend to have a boost to the economy (that's why we like them so much). WWII was almost entirely responsible for ending the Great Depression. As you might notice, since war was declared on Iraq in 2003 the economy has been strengthening.
FoFa said:
Give me a break. That is pretty dang weak. I saw that TV footage of GW out there searching for him himself. Yea right, LAME, LAME, LAME
No thanks, I'll keep my breaks. If Bush is so intent on stopping terrorism, then apprehending the individual most directly responsible for organizing terrorists throughout the world should be a top priority. Not only have we not caught him, but we can't even prevent him from continuing his work. I think this is a very valid point and a major political failure.
FoFa said:
Really, and those were the ONLY 3 things? And actually I saw on our news no less, expanded on the BBC America news evidence of WMD development found. (going on memory here) One by American troops, One or maybe two by British troops, and one by some other country's troops I can't recall.
Actually, WMDs were
the one and only reason he gave. When that didn't turn out, he made up a new reason. When that didn't turn out, he made a new one. Finally, he's settled on "spreading freedom".
FoFa said:
Well we will have to let that play out and jump to conclusions, as we all know, innocent until proven guilty as O.J. should prove.
Yes we will, but irregardless of outcomes, being connected to any scandal is a political blunder.
FoFa said:
Thens hos come he aint being impeached?
Two reasons I can think of. First, the Republicans have little to gain by doing so (and yet the Republicans are interestingly the most vocal about impeachment). Second, the Democrats know they'll simply be labelled as going on a witch hunt if they push for impeachment, not to mention putting Cheney in office and run against an incumbent
again. Better to let Bush hang himself and regain the White House next election.
FoFa said:
Damn, you got me on that one, unless he just agreed with congress every time, he is not suppose to use his veto power unless it is required in his opinon.
Uh huh.... I'm sure that's what it is.
FoFa said:
OK, so the worst that can be said in this case is he is not any better than any other president in creating these departments.
Possibly. The difference is that this is one of the few things that he's actually done. The less he tries to accomplish, the worse his failures are.
FoFa said:
And why do you say that? I have not heard any contraversy.
Wow. Yeah. OK. Let me fill you in on this one.
Everyone hated Harriet Meirs. Democrats said she was a terrible nominee. Republicans said she was a terrible nominee. She had no record whatsoever on which to be evaluated. No judicial experience, no scholarly works in which she clearly expressed her views. Her only qualification was that she worked for Bush (the same qualification that gets many of our stellar appointees their jobs). And yet out of what little was known about her, there was enough to piss just about everybody off. Yes, absolutely everyone agreed that it was a terrible blunder and it greatly weakened Bush politically.
FoFa said:
Like EVERY president before him.
Are we including the Presidents who served before social security was established?
FoFa said:
See #1. Even as the economy took a downturn during Clinton's last year in office, the national debt grew in only a very small amount - less than the growth of the economy. Clinton gift-wrapped Bush a surplus budget and he flushed it down the toilet.
FoFa said:
According to who? The democrates? Big whoop
I see now. So this doesn't actually have anything to do with facts, you just don't give a shit about anyone who disagrees with you. Nice.
FoFa said:
Um, I don't consider adultery a minor offense, sorry.
Well then indict 85% of the adult population in this country because that's about the proportion who've had sex out of wedlock. If adultery had a damn thing to do with being President I'd be with you on this.
FoFa said:
Well, he screwed up Hillary's Health Care reform so bad the republicans took over the house and senate. (Ok in my book that was a good thing).
He got caught in that whole WhiteWater thing.
I would bring up his impeachment, but even I thought that was a real streach for the republicans.
One word, Bosnia.
Another word, Somalia.
Sanctiones against Haiti causing their economy to collapse and a flood of refugees leaving.
Clintons failure to develop an Anti-Drug program because many beleive due to the tie between the latin american drug cartells and his close friend Lasatar.
Expansion of NATO
I'm not sure what's bad about expanding NATO, and I don't know how you could call Bosnia and Somalia a failure but Iraq a success.
Other than that, yes, those were all blunders by Clinton. Or at least they're not worth arguing against
FoFa said:
The coalition that elder Persident Bush forged to defeat the Iraqi Army in the war was all but desolved under Clinton's watch.
As far as I'm aware, the war ended while Bush was still in office. What, exactly was the coalition needed for?
FoFa said:
Rather than steadfastness and resoluteness in our handling of Hussein, he showed weakness and vacilation.
Not really. He was firm and consistent with Saddam. He simply preferred to let the UN handle the situation their way if possible instead of charging in and starting a(nother) war.
FoFa said:
Clinton failed to mobilize the world at large to understand the threat of Iraq, and failed unilaterally to carry out actions to futher our own interests.
And yet no one has been able to prove that Iraq was any kind of threat at all. All we have is Bush and Rumsfeld saying it is true over and over.
FoFa said:
Only at the point where Clinton faced the loss of his own power did he choose to act. The two year bombing campaign begun on the eve of his impeachment became a farce. Unable to stop it because to do so would be to admit failure. So the bombs dropped almost every day to no strategic purpose. (OK I cut/pasted that last one can't take credit).
I see. Basically you're saying it's OK for a Republican to start a war for political
and personal purposes (because that's exactly what happened) but not a Democrat. OK....