BryanLower
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
- Messages
- 159
It's definatley possible. Just irrational.
Clinton better than Bush?
- Thread starter zakur
- Start date
It's definatley possible. Just irrational.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Errrr,
if that is the case, then could you please tell me what you call what the current Bush has done with Iraq?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
davefoc
Philosopher
I think headscratcher4 basically got it right. Clinton was what I would call a fairly normal president. A few scandals, some areas where one might not agree with him ideologically and some political based appointments.
Still this was a guy that seemed reasonably engaged in trying to do what was best for the country. He was a reasonably competent fiscal manager that did no great harm.
Bush is a different animal. He is, by almost any measurement that matters to me the worst president of my life. He not only has made no significant progress on any significant problems affecting the US including social security, Medicare, illegal immigration, dependence on foreign oil and the federal deficit, he has actually exacerbated many of these problems with his incompetence and corruption.
He has been a terrible fiscal manager both because of a complete unwillingness to reel congress in (which may have planted the seeds for their own self-destruction) and because of the fiscal corruption of his own programs like the Medicare drug plan.
He easily has the most belligerent foreign policy of any administration of my life. He has sanctioned torture. His misplacement of priorities with respect to dealing with the terrorist threat may be at least partially responsible for the 9-11 disaster.
FEMA was savaged by him and turned into another department designed to dole out federal funds to Bushco cronies.
He has bypassed congress and the courts to implement various spying programs. The direction that he has taken here could end the American democracy as we know it as our system of checks and balances is replaced by an all-powerful chief executive.
The management of post war Iraq has been both stunningly corrupt and incompetent. He has lined the pockets of powerful supporters while asking soldiers to give up their lives.
He has failed to provide any significant leadership with respect to the rebuilding of New Orleans.
His bumbling has cost the US mightily in terms of foreign allies. Already being too closely allied with the US has cost the leaders of Spain and Italy to lose elections.
He has politicized federally funded science to unprecedented levels.
Despite all of the above the lies that he used to involve the US in Iraq will end up being his most significant legacy and the one which will have done more harm than all of the above combined.
Still this was a guy that seemed reasonably engaged in trying to do what was best for the country. He was a reasonably competent fiscal manager that did no great harm.
Bush is a different animal. He is, by almost any measurement that matters to me the worst president of my life. He not only has made no significant progress on any significant problems affecting the US including social security, Medicare, illegal immigration, dependence on foreign oil and the federal deficit, he has actually exacerbated many of these problems with his incompetence and corruption.
He has been a terrible fiscal manager both because of a complete unwillingness to reel congress in (which may have planted the seeds for their own self-destruction) and because of the fiscal corruption of his own programs like the Medicare drug plan.
He easily has the most belligerent foreign policy of any administration of my life. He has sanctioned torture. His misplacement of priorities with respect to dealing with the terrorist threat may be at least partially responsible for the 9-11 disaster.
FEMA was savaged by him and turned into another department designed to dole out federal funds to Bushco cronies.
He has bypassed congress and the courts to implement various spying programs. The direction that he has taken here could end the American democracy as we know it as our system of checks and balances is replaced by an all-powerful chief executive.
The management of post war Iraq has been both stunningly corrupt and incompetent. He has lined the pockets of powerful supporters while asking soldiers to give up their lives.
He has failed to provide any significant leadership with respect to the rebuilding of New Orleans.
His bumbling has cost the US mightily in terms of foreign allies. Already being too closely allied with the US has cost the leaders of Spain and Italy to lose elections.
He has politicized federally funded science to unprecedented levels.
Despite all of the above the lies that he used to involve the US in Iraq will end up being his most significant legacy and the one which will have done more harm than all of the above combined.
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Well then, davefoc, what you need is a tax cut if you're already wealthy, that is.
Deus Ex Machina
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 495
yeah, right. LOL
or unless there had been several polls taken which showed that maybe he should. I notice however that you gloss over several rather large "poorly planned" adventures such as Mogadishu - or did you forget that complete fiasco?
An arguable point but the point about the fish is no doubt correct
I would certainly bet that Clinton would have talked it up a lot more. I am sure he would have conjured up a sympathetic face.
Don't know much about the NSA during the Clinton era obviously.
I am not a US citizen and I have no party affiliations. I think Clinton was an OK president in good economic times. I don't think he had any policies that actually helped the economics - I think they stemmed from congress - but he did not get in the way either. I think Clinton's HUGE failure as president was his performance in dealing with the rise of Islamic terrorism - I am not sure that Bush would have done any better of course but Clinton, Albright et al screwed the pooch royally and have never been held fully acountable for their failures on this.
Bush on the other hand did quite a few things right in response to 9/11 including the invasion of Afghanistan and pushing countries like Pakistan into hunting down Al Qaeda. I think the invasion of Iraq was a strategically good move though I think the post war engagement has been extremely iffy in execution.
Where Bush has failed has been in economics. He campaigned as a conservative but he and the republican controlled congress have been on a spending spree for 5 years. If there was going to be a spending spree I would rather it was aimed at improving things like healthcare not pork barrels. It is funny, I think that Clinton as President seems to have been more Republican econimcally and Bush has been a Democrat.
Deus Ex Machina
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 495
Really? What priorities were those? Which did he re-order and how would they have been responsible for 9/11 - a plan which had been in place and being run prior to BUsh even becoming president?
Oh the sky is falling the sky is falling we are lving in a (pick one) theocracy/dictatorship/oligarchy. What a crock of rubbish. The "various spying programs" you refer to - one of which is monitoring calls between overseas terror suspects and people in the US is legal - you may not like it but it was legal before Bush. The other one - the collection of pone numbers has already, pre Bush again - been sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
oh what crap.
ah some cherry picking going on eh? Actually Berlusconi won re-election after the Iraq war - he LOST after promising to pull Italian troops OUT. Doesn't say much for your theory does it? In fact the countries that supported the US - like the UK, Denmark and Australia - the Prime Ministers all WON re-election. IN Germany - (who you probably have forgotten) the anti American Schroeder LOST.
Again that doesn't do much for your 'theory'.
Holy Cow a point I agree with!
oh god more tired tat from the propagandists. You could at least try and be original.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Hear, hear. Except, in my book, I would add one thing:
Publicly, at least, tipping the balance of powers began before the revelation of the spying fiasco. It began with his avocation of a political intimidation campaign against the judiciary by portraying judges who don't agree with the executive interpretation as "activist judges".
Everything else is at least potentially justifiable, or at least rationalizable, but undermining the judiciary's authority is a direct breach of his promise to uphold and protect the US Constitution, imho.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
But it still required judical review and approval, even if retrospective.
Nice try.
Both stayed for second terms because the opposition party completely dropped the ball in their nominations. It's not like either one of them was untouchable, after all. Clinton never cracked 50% of the electorate. Neither would Bush if there had been a well-funded Perot-style candidate in '04.
I think the deeper, unstated question is whether one thinks the '90s were better than the '00s have shaped up, and for a whole host of reasons related and unrelated, I think most would say the 90s were a golden era. Certainly a more innocent time, ironically.
Clinton and Bush have one thing in common, IMHO, and that both were best at being cartaker presidents. Clinton didn't do a whole lot to shake the tree, and that's just how America wanted it. Bush would have been better off with the same strategy, but events just didn't allow it. It's hard to compare two similar skill sets under such different circumstances.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I don't think Bush would have been merely a caretaker president. He was hot to go after Saddam before 9/11, imho. 9/11 probably just sped up the timetable and made it happen all the sooner, and distracted us from those who actually attacked us.
Excellent point re: Bush getting personal with Saddam, but I heartily disagree on Iraq as distraction. Terrorists are terrorists, and he was quite clear that his policy extended well beyond al Qaida. At least Libya got the message... that's gotta be worth something.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Well, I for one do not see anything wrong with using polling to gauge public support for one thing or another. After all, the president is supposed to be President of the entire United States and not just a tool for the core of the people who support him.
Further, I do remember Mogadishu, and if you will kindly remember that it was the first Bush who got the USA involved there, so that was a problem that Clinton inherited as opposed to caused.
It is hardly arguable that the war has been very poorly planned and fought, Bush & Co. have flat-out admitted as much.
Sorry, but Clinton would have actually done something substantive about Katrina. Did you ever hear about the time when he was first elected Governor of Arkansas when there was an accident regarding an ICBM silo that had exploded? He sure was on the ball regarding that crisis and he had not even been on the job for two weeks.
Perhaps I do not. If you could inform me of any NSA abuses, illegal spying, or other such things that Clinton approved, then please share this data. I sure would like this data as opposed to vague accusations that such things occurred.
True enough, economic times were good during the Clinton presidency. While he did not create these conditions, he was very good at not upsetting the apple cart.
I would have to say that Clinton did fairly good at combating Islamic Terrorism. He did so by engaging with Israel and her enemies. He also did so by actually stopping terrorist attacks. And he did so by finding and convicting terrorists.
No doubt about it, Bush has been a real failure in economics; which is saying a great deal considering how well the economy was doing when he took over.
I noticed that you are now conceding that Bush has not properly pursued the war, and that is certainty a fact. Usma bin Laden is still at large and I wonder how the Iraq invasion was such a strategically good move. It has done nothing for us in terms of security, or oil production, or democracy in Iraq, but it has been an excellent distraction that other nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela have been able to exploit for their own anti-USA purposes.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Yes, but in doing so, he has all but abandoned (publically, at least) the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Even to the extent of saying that he isn't concerned about him. What should have been our top priority has been pushed into the background in favor of his pre-determined agenda with shifting rationalizations tie it back in.
Murderers are murderers, but not all murderers were involved with 9/11 nor will taking out an unrelated group of murderers prevent another 9/11.
We were hit by Al Capone and Bush went after Bonnie and Clyde.
It is. Quite a bit, actually. But it still has nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. It was an unintended consequence.
No offense, but that's like saying Germany wouldn't have fallen in '45 without Hitler's head on a pike. And apart from one offhand comment, I haven't seen anything from anyone to suggest that Bush has "abandoned the hunt" for OBL. No one ever said Bush doesn't say hamfisted things.
If you know of some kind of policy shift, I'd like to see that cited.Upchurch, you're counting the hits and dismissing the misses. Come on, you know better than that.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
No offense, but that's like saying Germany wouldn't have fallen in '45 without Hitler's head on a pike. And apart from one offhand comment, I haven't seen anything from anyone to suggest that Bush has "abandoned the hunt" for OBL. No one ever said Bush doesn't say hamfisted things.
Just the usual stuff, note the importance stressed in the earlier comments: (source)
If not abandoned, then put on the back burner on low.
But that particular hit is a non-sequitor. If I'm guessing you have a dead relative whose name starts with a "P" and Crossbow says he does, does that count as a hit even though I didn't get the specific information I was after?
edited to fix the quote tag. Also, I used Crossbow as an example because he was the first name I ran into as I scrolled down the page.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
davefoc wrote:
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
The key issue here is checks and balances. Perhaps the programs are reasonable. But if a president is allowed to implement them unilaterally without oversight from congress or the courts, the what mechanismisms are in place to see that the executive branch does not abuse the programs or gradually implement more far reaching programs?
It seems very easy to imagine a situation where the executive branch would blur the distinction between anti-terrorist intelligence gathering and political opponent intelligence gathering. What checks are in place to prevent this given the way that Bushco appears to have set up these programs?
Another important issue is how does the information collected in a potentially illegal surveillance move from there into a court? The Bushco pushing the envelope between legal and illegal may have made some evidence inadmissable where if they had gone through congress and/or the courts the same information might have been admissable.
But do I think the sky is falling? It is a bit. If congress doesn't step up to reestablish their authority to limit the executive branch then the sky would definitely be falling. My assumption is that congress will do that but so far its attempts have been feeble.
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
The key issue here is checks and balances. Perhaps the programs are reasonable. But if a president is allowed to implement them unilaterally without oversight from congress or the courts, the what mechanismisms are in place to see that the executive branch does not abuse the programs or gradually implement more far reaching programs?
It seems very easy to imagine a situation where the executive branch would blur the distinction between anti-terrorist intelligence gathering and political opponent intelligence gathering. What checks are in place to prevent this given the way that Bushco appears to have set up these programs?
Another important issue is how does the information collected in a potentially illegal surveillance move from there into a court? The Bushco pushing the envelope between legal and illegal may have made some evidence inadmissable where if they had gone through congress and/or the courts the same information might have been admissable.
But do I think the sky is falling? It is a bit. If congress doesn't step up to reestablish their authority to limit the executive branch then the sky would definitely be falling. My assumption is that congress will do that but so far its attempts have been feeble.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Just to make a small point about this response ...
I seriously doubt that Libya has much of anything to do with the Iraq War because Libya has been working for years to get back into the universe. That sounds like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.
Libya made a series of concessions during the Clinton presidency and the Libyan nuclear program was so well hidden that the CIA did not know about it, however Libya renounced the program all the same in order to normalize relations with the USA.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,338
To be honest, Clinton couldn't reel in Congress, either. Before the Internet boom started, he had thrown up his hands and said, about the debt, "I give up. $150 billion deficits every year for as far as the eye can see."
Which amounts are, of course, very quaint on retrospect.
You were born during the Carter administration?
A little historical perspective is good here. There was another hurricane during the Clinton administration. Fema flopped then, too. At the time it was said that the Fema directorship was little more than a political patronage job, and that's why it bungled so badly. This must stop! was cried by all, and Congress swore it would!
It did not. Blame Bush for not cleaning it up since he inherited a known problem. But don't pretend for a second he invented the patronage job, "head of Fema".