Clinton better than Bush?

[hgc]

...
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".

Got evidence for any of this?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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.

Oh OK then - so you are saying that 9/11 is Clinton's 'fault' then? Or are you merely trying to move the goal posts as is usual in these arguments? Seeing as the elements of the 9/11 attack were put in place during the Clinton administration and, at least according to Bin Laden, inspired by Clinton's screw ups in Mogadishu I am sure that you wont be trying to weasel around on this..

It is hardly arguable that the war has been very poorly planned and fought, Bush & Co. have flat-out admitted as much.

actually what they have admimtted is that the Iraq part of it has not gone as they planned. You seem to forget - as a lot of people do - that the 'war' is more than Iraq.

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.

Your opinion backed up by nothing more than anecdote.

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.

Try researching the NSA program Echelon.


Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.


Oh yeah - the 60 minutes program was broadcast in Feb of 2000.

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.

Yes, I agree - and I do think that is his strength

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.

wow I must have imagined the bombings of the embassies, the first WTC and the bombing in Dhahran.

Let me clarify something - I do not think that Clinton or Bush were "responsible" for 9/11. The psychotics who hijacked the planes and the people who run Al Qaeda are solely responsible for it.

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.

ah that selective memory coming into play. It must be nice having such a rosy view of the past when it suits you.

I noticed that you are now conceding that Bush has not properly pursued the war, and that is certainty a fact.

actually I am not conceding that - I dont think there is a perfect way to pursue a war. I certainly think that Bush has done a far better job than Clinton would have but that's just my opinion. I am certainly very grateful that Al Gore was not president when 9/11 happened. That it is difficult - yep. But there again I am not trying to make political points out of US deaths.

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.

Bin Laden being at large is a red herring but there again I am sure you knew that. As for North Korea Iran and Venezuela "exploiting" it strikes me that they are antiUS - they would exploit whatever was available to advance their agenda. Have they been more or less successful than they would have been? I am not sure.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which President did worse than Bush?

I mean....it's no feat at all "outperforming" Bush, since Bush has done nothing.

Except making people wish for a different President, that is.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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?

How about the one that is in place now? The press, congress and the Supreme Court. The IFSA Appeal court may well have decided (as it did) that the President has a lot of legal leeway on what he (or, in the future perhaps, she) may do but as long as there are ways for it to be challenged and debated that is good.

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?

None - how about taking action if it does happen instead of dreaming up scenarios that might have happened. You may as well argue that FDR could have taken over as ultimate dictator using the US military and what checks and balances were there to stop him>

Another important issue is how does the information collected in a potentially illegal surveillance move from there into a court?

what on earth is a "potentially" illegal surveillance? Why not do some research on it - the first program (phone calls between susected terrorists and the US) was already found to be legal in 2002 by the IFSA Review Court.

It was also found legal in US v Truong


In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant’s spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch’s inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:

The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong’s phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a “foreign intelligence” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government’s position:

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

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.

I the envelope has been pushed it was in 1980 when this was settled.

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.

See now we come in a sort of circle to an agreement - the potential is there for any president to aggrandize his powers beyond where they should be. I do not think Bush has done so, you obviously do but that's what I like about living in this country - the fact that we can debate it, vigorously, is proof that the sky is not falling.

I think the balance tilts in various ways at various times but it tends to the middle as it should.

Personally speaking I think the best of all scenarios is when the president is from one party and congress from the other.

 

[EBU]

Well, I'm new here, but as to sources for the assertion that FEMA was bad under Clinton, too... I didn't remember complaints about FEMA when Clinton was president. So I did a quick search in the NY Times archive, and all I came up with was a quote from Bush (in a debate with Gore in 2000) where he said that Witt was doing a good job at FEMA. Of course, maybe the Fox archive would have something else...

 

[Tricky]

Well, I'm new here, but as to sources for the assertion that FEMA was bad under Clinton, too... I didn't remember complaints about FEMA when Clinton was president. So I did a quick search in the NY Times archive, and all I came up with was a quote from Bush (in a debate with Gore in 2000) where he said that Witt was doing a good job at FEMA. Of course, maybe the Fox archive would have something else...

Got a link? Oh, that's right you're a newbie and can't post links. Damn, that means I'll have to do my own legwork.

Anyway, welcome to the forums, EBU. (Does it stand for anything? European Business Union? Educated But Unstable? Excellent Belgian Urologist?)

 

[Roadtoad]

I don't remember FEMA being bad under Clinton, except when my parents house got flooded out, and FEMA said they weren't eligible for Federal Aid money.

Ces't la guerre.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

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.

I worked in government during the Clinton Administration. Agencies now cut to the bone by Bush were better funded under Clinton and that included services that are gutted now like the VA. At the end, the US had a budget surplus. Remember Bush's "tax refunds because the people were taxed too much." LOL!

You were born during the Carter administration?

I remember Richard Nixon. Carter was the first president I voted for.

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".

Odd. I lived through two devistating hurricanes, Fran and Floyd during the Clinton Administration. FEMA was right there to help within days and we did not have to wait three days for the National Guard to be called back from Iraq to restore order and start search and rescue. FEMA was an agency in its own right and recieved sole funding until Bush dissolved it and placed the Agency under Homeland Security. Such fancy footwork happens all the time to fund personal pork barrel projects. Bush is a master of deficieit spending. One must remember all government agencies are bureaucracies. They move through a sea of red tape and paper. FEMA was not perfect, but handled Fran and Floyd much more smoothly than Katrina.

My source for all this is the Congressional Record. I had to read the darn thing every day congress was in session for 6 years.

And a link for those who would really like to research: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

Clinton may have not been perfect, however cronyism was not rampant with his blessing as it is under Bush.

 

[EBU]

My link for Bush's praise of Witt (FEMA director under Clinton): As noted, I can't publish links (I'm too new), but it was in a transcript of a Gore-Bush debate that was published in the Times on Oct 4, 2000. Bush said, "I've got to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis."

Note to Tricky: Thank you for welcome. EBU stands for my name. I am not creative.

 

[Ryokan]

I didn't think Clinton did anydamnthing. Except get a BJ. And lie about his sex life (like everybody else). Lessee, he bombed some camels.... Sent the Marines to Mogadishu for a couple weeks... We wouldn't let him and Wifey wreck the health care system.... Restrained the CIA, just enough to cause his successor grief....sold pardons... Did he do anything pro-active? About anything? My recollection is that he did less than Jimmy Carter? While Bush has certainly done stuff of lasting import- only time will tell whether the outcome will be good or bad. But the potential of bringing Democracy to the middle east is emmence, especially as they run out of oil and need a real economy in the region.

How about stopping the genocides in Bosnia and Kosovo?

 

[Meadmaker]

Sent the Marines to Mogadishu for a couple weeks...

Actually, that was GHWB.

Did he do anything pro-active? About anything?

There was that whole budget surplus thing.

While Bush has certainly done stuff of lasting import- only time will tell whether the outcome will be good or bad. But the potential of bringing Democracy to the middle east is emmence, especially as they run out of oil and need a real economy in the region.

Other than your spelling, I will agree here. I was optimistic as the Iraq war began, but at this moment, he appears to have bungled the job, and Iraq will not turn into a meaningful democracy after all. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, GWB gets the credit.

 

[DavidJames]

I didn't think Clinton did anydamnthing.

Another way of looking at it is, what did Clinton not do...

Clinton didn't:

Rely on bad intelligence to invade another country
Vow to capture the #1 U.S. enemy dead or alive and then later say it didn't matter that he wasn't caught
Give away tax revenues to help create the largest deficit in U.S. history
Refuse to testify under oath about an important topic
Then demand his VP accompany him
Support efforts to create a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
Say that Intelligent Design should be taught along side Evolution
Tell Americans that it's important they know the religious beliefs of a Supreme Court nominee
Early in his 1st term go ahead with secret meetings to plan an important policies (energy) in the face of criticism (Clinton abandon his health care meetings)
Claim "A Wiretap Requires A Court Order. Nothing Has Changed." knowing full well that wasn't true.

That's a pretty good start.