mersenneforum.org Bush vs. Clinton
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 View Poll Results: Which one caused the most long term problems? Bush is a baffoon 10 47.62% No. Clinton is THE baffoon 4 19.05% The mass media are the baffoons 1 4.76% Neither president created any serious problems 0 0% Screw politics, I can't trust any of them 6 28.57% Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

 2003-10-14, 21:37 #1 nomadicus     Jan 2003 North Carolina 24610 Posts Bush vs. Clinton I thought it might be interesting to compare Bush and Clinton's presidencies at this time. Why? Clinton's approval numbers never really sank very low. On the otherhand, President Bush is in a poll approval slump (somewhat predictable after a war). I support Bush and believe that the UN wimped out and France seemed to lead the way out (No offense to our readers from France, but I really think your politicians dropped the ball). From a US viewpoint, this bothers me a lot: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12045 too. Not enforcing our agreement with China is creating problems. I don't know if I can or cannot give Clinton credit for this. Since I don't have a real opinion on this one . . . have at it (especially if you live outside the US). These protestors http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6081 have a good case against Clinton's track record. Clinton did miss the mark. Bush has taken on Al-Qaeda, Iraq, national security, etc. and should be supported. Ignoring these issues is what Clinton did, putting us at risk with one result being 9/11 (not to mention the first time the WTC was attacked in 1993). Do you disagree? I'd like to hear from those outside the US. It may give me some more to ponder and I'd like that.
 2003-10-14, 22:59 #2 philmoore     "Phil" Sep 2002 Tracktown, U.S.A. 1,117 Posts I'll respond from within the U.S., maybe others in other countries can also respond. My response to the "Campus Conservatives Protest Clinton Speech" is that much of what the protest organizer Brendan Steinhauser claims in the article is blatantly untrue. Clinton allowed Saddam Hussein to rebuild his military? Excuse me, but I thought that most reports now indicate that his military was decimated in the aftermath of the 1991 war, much of it as a result of the sanctions supported by Clinton. Clinton did "virtually nothing" and was "grossly negligent" in response to the terrorist attacks of the 1990's? So he must be considering Clinton's airstrikes, etc. as nothing. Let's remember that in spite of the fact that the Oslo accords were unsuccessful, Clinton at least was able to get the opposing sides in the Israeli/Palestinan conflict talking to each other. I was traveling in Morocco in early September of 2001, and what people there kept asking me then was, why doesn't President Bush care about what is going on in the Middle East? I really think that Bush's neglect of the Middle East conflicts was a major factor which led up to September 11th. I won't say that it would not have happened had he not been president, but I do think that his go-it-alone, cowboy diplomacy caused a lot of frustration in the rest of the world. Clinton had many flaws, I voted against him in 1996, but I am getting tired of hearing the right-wingers trying to blame every last problem on Clinton. But unfortunately it is much easier to criticize than offer a constructive alternative. Bush has restored integrity to the White House? Give me a break!
 2003-10-15, 03:24 #3 nomadicus     Jan 2003 North Carolina 111101102 Posts In case my original post didn't read quite right, I do mean for everyone both within the US as well as any other country to debate this. If your personal location information is not filled in your profile, you may want to mention the country you are from.
 2003-10-15, 05:25 #4 cheesehead     "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 22·3·641 Posts Which President Bush? Bush the Elder or Bush the Younger? :)
2003-10-15, 06:49   #5

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22·3·641 Posts
Re: Bush vs. Clinton

Quote:
 Originally posted by nomadicus I thought it might be interesting to compare Bush and Clinton's presidencies at this time.
Nomadicus, do you sincerely want serious discussion of this topic?

Your poll answer choices signal that this thread is for farce. If you want a serious discussion, how about substituting (if possible) poll choices that reflect the mood you prefer for discussion?

Quote:
 Why? Clinton's approval numbers never really sank very low. On the otherhand, President Bush is in a poll approval slump (somewhat predictable after a war).
After a war? When did the War on Terrorism end? Have you noticed that Bush's declaration of the War on Terrorism contained no criterion for victory other than the complete elimination of terrorism (which is impossible, so this war is endless)?

(Correct me if I'm wrong -- show me where there are practical criteria for ending this war, if they exist.)

Quote:
 From a US viewpoint, this bothers me a lot: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12045 too. Not enforcing our agreement with China is creating problems.
Exactly how could the agreement with China to which you refer have been enforced?

Quote:
 These protestors http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6081 have a good case against Clinton's track record.
No, they don't. It's just a collection of familiar slanders, untruths, and distortions that the right wing has been hurling ... hmm ... ever since today's college students were too young to have understood what was going on in national politics.

Think about the information sources for young people who are now college-age. Ten years ago, in the first year of the Clinton administration, most of them were roughly 8-12 years old. I sincerely doubt that their personal recollections are complete enough, detailed enough, and mature enough to form the basis for adequate adult judgement.

Would they have learned about the Clinton administration in school? Aren't most secondary school history texts at least several years behind current events? Do you really think that even by their senior years, roughly 1999-2002, they would have ever encountered competent objective discription of any but the very earliest Clinton-era events in school texts?

Where else? Oh, yes -- current propaganda.

Quote:
 Clinton did miss the mark. Bush has taken on Al-Qaeda, Iraq, national security, etc. and should be supported. Ignoring these issues is what Clinton did,
No, he didn't.

When Clinton had cruise missles launched at Ak-Qaeda camps, Republicans ridiculed him at the time for hitting only camels and empty tents.

Where do Republicans memtion that the Clinton administration tracked down, brought to trial, and successfully obtained convictions of the people responsible for the first WTC bombing? Nowhere.

The Big Lie technique being used by some right-wingers is to repeatedly assert, until those who don't do their research or are too young to remember what actually happened start repeating it, the bald lie that Clinton did nothing. I'm not accusing you of knowingly and deliberately lying. I consider it quite possible and probable that you actually believe that your accusations are true because you haven't investigated their accuracy and don't realize that you are perpetuating propaganda. How old are you, anyway? Did you do any research in news archives from the Clinton years to find evidence to back up those assertions before making them?

Quote:
 putting us at risk with one result being 9/11
Actually, Gore, if elected President, would have taken actions to defend the US against terrorist threats without waiting for one to manifest itself. During the Clinton administration, Gore presided over a national commission to study potential terrorist threats to the US and ways to set up defenses again them. Republicans ridiculed the Clinton administration's proposal for a Department of Homeland Security when floated during the 1990s.

But most Americans didn't want to hear discussions of such things by presidential campaigners in 2000.

2003-10-16, 01:51   #6

Jan 2003
North Carolina

2·3·41 Posts

Quote:
 Originally posted by cheesehead Which President Bush? Bush the Elder or Bush the Younger? :)
cheesehead, here is what I said:
Quote:
 Originally posted by nomadicus On the otherhand, President Bush is in a poll approval slump . . .
I thought the above was clear.

So, just in case I am unclear, please consider the word "is" found in the above partial quote of myself. "Is" is a present tense verb. But that is not all we have to consider. In the context of my post, one needs to consider the date and time stamp of the aforementioned post, in this case "14 Oct 2003 5:37pm." Using this date/time stamp, we can form a conclusion as to which Bush I am refering to. Since President Bush is in office, it becomes clear what is is.

Here is some pseudo code (that I hope doesn't have to be in any specific format) I've named "Bush Determinate AlGorithm" or BDAG for short.
Quote:
 BDAG start main; OrigPostDate = "14 Oct 2003 5:37pm"; President41="George Bush"; ! Name spelling found here President43="Georde W. Bush"; ! Name spelling found here CurDateTime=gettime(); if (GetPresNameByDateTime(CurDateTime) = President41) {Print President41;} else {if (GetPresNameByDateTime(CurDateTime) = President43) {Print President43;} else {Print "No Bush found for ", CurDateTime;}}; BDAG end main;
Hopefully, if there was any confusion regarding is, that is is resolved; therefore, I'll let my original post speak for itself.

cheesehead - I can tell you and I are going to have some fun sparing back and forth, however, I am going leave your main post unanswered for a day or two. Maybe someone, in addition to you and philmoore, will chime in and join the fun. Although, I gotta tell ya, my childhood abandonment issues are starting to surface; I really hope someone will side with me -- but if not, I'll make it through this potentially tough and lonely time.

2003-10-16, 01:55   #7

Jan 2003
North Carolina

2×3×41 Posts
Re: Re: Bush vs. Clinton

Quote:
 Originally posted by cheesehead Nomadicus, do you sincerely want serious discussion of this topic?
Yes I do. But in the broad scheme of things we are not going to sway public opinion one way or the other. So I am going to have some fun with this topic and inject humor and poke fun. If this gets too serious or the humor attacks the person instead of the topic, etc., what's the point? I am not debating because I have to, I am debating because I want to.

 2003-10-16, 02:04 #8 nomadicus     Jan 2003 North Carolina 2×3×41 Posts Arg. The pseudo code was not complete. . . and my 5 minutes timed out before I could get to it.
2003-10-16, 06:51   #9
Xyzzy

"Mike"
Aug 2002

7,561 Posts

Quote:
 Originally posted by nomadicus Arg. The pseudo code was not complete. . . and my 5 minutes timed out before I could get to it.
Measure twice and cut once...

2003-10-18, 04:16   #10

Jan 2003
North Carolina

2·3·41 Posts

Quote:
 Originally posted by philmoore Bush has restored integrity to the White House? Give me a break!
Bush did exactly that. Look at the military. Has moral improved a lot? Yes. Bush brought integrity to the white house.

Clinton lacked integrity by doing the wrong things. He reduced military personnel and weapons (depleted one entirely) and kept pay low. Remember those reductions in the federal gorvernment? It was vague as to where the cuts were made. You'll find, the reduction was not on the social side (e.g., could have reduced the waste); the reductions happened on the defense side. Combine that with the federal budget maintaing growth at 6-7%+ each year, and you'll see that the military reductions were nullified by the growth on the social side. If I stretch it, I can find a good thing about military reductions: they have become leaner, smarter, and more efficient. The otherside of that equation is that the US military is the entity that protects the nation; therefore, the risks in military reduction were unexceptable and irresponsible. His integrity? Sub-par.

Yep. Integrity. Clinton was impeached. That was right wingers doing the nasty? Fine. He purgered himself to a judge.

Moving on . . . Clinton got the two coutries together, but the Palistinians refused Isreal's offer when Isreal came through with what the PLO wanted the most: the land. What action was taken after that rejection? Where was the follow through?

Look. I could go on and on. You want to avoid Clinton bashing, yet the protest article is a lot more on target then you are giving credit, it is unfortuate that too much of it is true.

As for your statement on Bush's "go-it-alone, cowboy diplomacy:" I'll just say I don't think you are looking at a lot of things when you say that (if you want to debate that further, perhaps start another thread?)

Quote:
 Originally posted by nomadicus I thought it might be interesting to compare Bush and Clinton's presidencies at this time. Why? Clinton's approval numbers never really sank very low. On the otherhand, President Bush is in a poll approval slump . . .
Clinton had better ratings then Bush's today.

Here is what I think is going on. I contend that Clinton's actions, outside of his legal problems, were not under the microscope like Bush's actions today due to the war. I want to frame that in terms of time: the length of time for an action taken held present in the public eye. Looking at a major initiative such as the Iraq war and its aftermath for an extended time impacts Bush's rating polls negatively. Clinton never did anything so large and therefore because of the short time of his actions, his poll rating were significantly higher.

Another point to consider is that Clinton had many legal issues to contend with that resulted in his foreign policy, his energy, his ability to lead compromised (it had to to some degree). I am not dicussing the legal issues so much as saying he had them and it compromised him. Looking at today, Bush has had results in a short time, yet Clinton has the better approval ratings.

Clinton's actions, many of them, ended up lack luster (the airstrikes, putting the PLO and Isreal together). As separate items, they add up to an impressive list in terms of length, but taken together they achieved little. That has lasting consquences. The war will have lasting consquences; I think (and hope) for the better. That is one reason why I put Bush ahead of Clinton.
I just think it is interesting that poll data says it should be the other way around. That too could change . . .

2003-10-18, 15:34   #11
kwstone

Jun 2003
Shanghai, China

109 Posts

Quote:
 Originally posted by nomadicus (Clinton's )risks in military reduction were unexceptable and irresponsible.
Just who do you think the USA needs to defend itself against? According to http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersfy04.html , even after the Clinton reductions, the USA is still spending more on the military than the next 22 largest military spenders in the world put together.

Is there really a serious risk that Russia, China, Japan, the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Israel, Spain, Australia, Canada, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Turkey, Singapore, Sweden, Iran and Kuwait are about to enter into some kind of unholy alliance against you? Has it escaped your notice that most of these nations are your allies anyway?

If I add up the annual military spending of those countries who might legitimately be considered "enemies" to the US (that is Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Lybia and Cuba) I come out at a miserable US$10.5 billion. By stretching one's paranoia a little to consider your old cold-war rivals (Russia, China and Vietnam) as part of the list of "enemies" as well, we reach US$125 billion, as against US military spending of US\$ 399 billion. Even allowing for some exaggeration in these figures, the USA doesn't exactly look vulnerable, does it?

For any defensive purposes these figures look very comfortably more than adequate, even should you need to fight all these baddies alone.

So just how were Clinton's cuts "unexceptable (sic) and irresponsible"?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post cheesehead Soap Box 4 2009-07-12 03:19 cheesehead Soap Box 173 2008-07-12 22:24 ewmayer Soap Box 23 2007-05-27 12:37 jasong Soap Box 8 2006-05-22 17:32 cheesehead Soap Box 86 2006-03-12 18:00

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:48.

Tue Jul 14 05:48:18 UTC 2020 up 111 days, 3:21, 0 users, load averages: 1.54, 1.71, 1.81