I got a question..... and i want a honest answer... Did Bill Clinton create all the issues and turmoil that we see today that is going on? IMO, clinton left and Bush came in and had alot on his hands. I like the guy, and i am critical of him in a way, but then when i am always critical i look to Clinton and see his 8 years in office and think to myself that Clinton actually didn't exactly "clean up his oval office desk" if you know what i mean From Domestic Issues to IMF issues, to 9/11, the middle east, Anti-American ratings (that we covered) and even gun control and stuff like that...Clinton never really took care of it and just let the garbage of the drama sit out there for "DEBILYAAAA" and Dick........ do you think this is correct to say?
I have to resepctfully disagree with you for the most part. The economy was already coming off the rails, so you could say that was Clinton's fault. However, Bush's tax cut has made things worse and running a defecit will not help matters. On the interational front consider this. Under Clinton there was a framework for piece in Israel agreed to, North Korea agreeed to behave (I know a lot of you will disagree with me on that) and Northern Ireland agreed to stop making war on each other. Bush (directly or indirectly) has done all he could to unravel the Mid East peace movement (mostly by siding with the right-wing in Israel) and North Korea (which they have been bating for more than a year now). If he could, I bet he would try to get the IRA and Usterites fighting again.
The very idea of "cleaning things up" is a gross misunderstanding of human nature. Not only is history constantly being invented, but some problems are intractible, like poverty. Besides, it isn't always clear what cleaning up means. A year after an event, our hindsight might suggest a solution that we think would have worked - and a decade later, the same event is reinterpreted and a totally different solution would be the obvious one.
But come on!!! Clinton had bin laden where he wanted him but he chose not to attack!!!!!! When he did, he got Bin Laden more angry..... Wasn't that the Pre-Lude for 9/11 there? Other than that, in the middle east, he never fixed anything up with peace...Just when he left the office the violence flared and Bush came, he didn't know what to tackle first. Mind you that both Rep and Dem's both used Israel as a context for there campaigns..... North Korea got promises from Albright and Cohen, but Korea is playing cards. Israeli wise, i know who Korea is and when they hear the Ching-Ching $$$$ They start playing hardball......... Clinton made things worse, rather than make things better 2000 was a good year, but then there was the resession, thought no one can argue that there were terrific times for the economy between 1994-1997 and then again in and out around 1999 to early 2000!!!!
Now it is clear that you were not asking a serious question, but just looking for another reason to bash Clinton. Did Bush the Elder "solve" the North Korean problem? Did Reagan "solve" the Cuban problem? Presidents don't "solve" anything, they just manage things for a while. It is the idea that he can solve the middle eastern problem that is the great failing of Bush the Younger, and it will be the downfall of him and this nation. Just save us the trouble and start another "Blow-jobs are sinful!" thread.
Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? I've been arguing your very point ever since the Bush roasting started. If we really want to blame someone, it would be Clinton. His administration was, to put it nicely, lethargic towards combating threats. Time after time, he ignored terrorist activities in and out of the United States. You'd think that when some people attempted to bring down the WTC in 1993, you'd be proactive in rooting out the network they belonged to. Then you look at Iraq, and shake your head. He allowed the inspectors to be bullied beyond belief. He "threatened" with Desert Fox, but i think both sides of the aisle know that it was a joke.As for the mid east peace deal, all clinton did was nod aprovingly. Israel did agree to the peace, but take a wild guess at who didn't? And yea, he really got North Korea to "behave." When you let an aging ex-president go over your head and hand them a nuclear reactor, that makes them behave just fine. Gee, i think it is that very reactor which is powering NK's nuclear arsenal and that arsenal is now being used to blackmail this nation. He basically kept Americans concerned with the budget "surplus" of the 90's (i guess when you skim social security dollars and throw that into the budget you might get a 'surplus') and was a complete failure on the foreign policy front.
> You'd think that when some people attempted to > bring down the WTC in 1993, you'd be proactive > in rooting out the network they belonged to. He did. They are all in jail. And he was very concerned with Al Qaeda. He always kept a cruise missile capable ship within range of Afghanistan in case he learned the position of Bin Laden. That partol was later removed to to ease relations with the Taliban by.. well, I'll let you figure that one out. > Then you look at Iraq, and shake your head. He > allowed the inspectors to be bullied beyond belief. The fact that there is a nation that does not do what we tell them does not make it a threat, nor a serious problem. > As for the mid east peace deal, all clinton did > was nod aprovingly. How was Mars? It seems like you were there for 8 years. The Israel problem was a constant obsession of Clinton and he delt with it constantly. He often talked to both parties and even had them in the United States on different occasions. It is especially confusing why you would raise this point when it the Bush administration's way of dealing with this issue is to ignore it. Lets look at the numbers: Israeli (and foriegn national) deaths caused by bombings and other attacks: 1994 - 38 1995 - 36 1996 - 59 1997 - 24 1998 - 1 1999 - 0 2000 - 9 2001 - 114 2002 - 240 2003 - 39 Look at these numbers, man. I'm not saying that Bush is at fault for the jump, but to claim Clinton is at fault is just ignorant. > Gee, i think it is that very reactor which is > powering NK's nuclear arsenal and that arsenal is > now being used to blackmail this nation North Korea has been blackmailing this nation since the Eisenhower administration. "Fixing" them would cost far more than would be gained. Clinton just did what they all did, which is the reasonable thing to do. Just keep them on a leash. Time is on our side. > He basically kept Americans concerned with the > budget "surplus" of the 90's Oh, horror of horrors! > (i guess when you skim social security dollars and > throw that into the budget you might get > a 'surplus') And how big would our current deficit be if we used this accounting?
To be fair, i had no idea the death count was that low. Thanks for the data.But c'mon man, saying that because NK has always been a pain doesn't mean you should just forgive Clinton for he (or moreover Carter) did.
Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Ok, I'm ignoring the rest because you're not worth even responding to this. It's highly unlikely that nuclear reactors promised to NK in the agreed framework are the source of NK plutonium that it is currently using to build its nuclear program for two reasons: 1. The nuclear reactors promised to NK are soft water reactors that do not produce waste that is easily converted into a nuclear weapon. It is enormously costly to use this waste to make a weapon if you have the know how to do it. And NK does not. 2. THE REACTORS WERE NEVER BUILT!!! The plutonium NK is currently reprocessing is from a 5 MW reactor it has had since the late 1980s-early 1990s. This reactor was shut down under the agreed framework and the plutonium was put under observation of the IAEA. That situation remained in place until about 2 months after the Bush administration confronted NK about building a uranium based nuclear weapons system (which, by the way, was still several years from producing any material useful in building a weapon). Learn something before you post.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Yeah, but if he did that, he couldn't indulge his fanatical right-wing beliefs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? I'm pretty sure they were built. Show me otherwise. Besides, you're saying it is ok to negotiate to give NK a nuclear reactor? Ok then....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? well you're absolutely wrong, they were never built. concrete was poured on one site but unless weapons grade plutonium or uranium can be built from concrete, I'd say that's pretty useless to furthering NK's nuclear program. As for my sources, one is the Wendy Sherman, special counsel to Sec. Albright, and the man who negotiated the agreed framework with NK (his name escapes me at the moment and I'm not going back through my notes to get it.) If that's not good enough for you, I guess I'll find a newspaper article
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Learn yourself some science. All radioactive elements are not created equal. Nuclear can be a terrific source of electricity, and does not automatically equal The Bomb.
blame to go around I think there is enough blame to go around with Bush I & II and Clinton: Bush I should have ignored the UN mandate and eliminated the Republican Guard at the end of the Gulf War in 91. If we had cut them off and eliminated all of their hardware - by land or by air (and made the no fly zone permanent throughout their entire country) - then the anti Hussein movement would have a chance to overthrow him in 91 - and we might have avoided all of this. If nothing else we might learn what that caused us then by not forcing the UN mandate more stridently. Clinton - was asleep - only took a modicum of a stand (cruise missiles without accompanying land based attack is like urinating on your adversary from three stories up - he will take a shower and then get pissed and resolve to get you later), and certainly did not take a proactive stand against AQ and WMD. Bush II - has certainly screwed up the coalition to a degree over the last twelve months. The biggest mistake IMO was that he did not undertake a marathon 2-3 week road show last summer to get all the ducks lined up with Germany, France, Russia and the UK - if he had done that I think it would have helped those leaders and countries take a hard stand with us in the UN. But he did not - we are we are.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Yea I guess when a country says "we can win a nuclear war against you" they really mean "time to dish out some mad electricity."
The Reagan administration funded and armed both Saddam and Osama. The Bush I adminstration had Saddam sitting like a duck, but left him. Clinton carried out eight years of useless and inhumane containment on Iraq, bombing the country with regularity. Bush II is starting an illegal war and subverting the UN charter. When it comes to the middle east and this terrorism stuff, they all suck. ------------------------------ Bush II is putting gasoline on the fires with his cronyism and deficit spending. Bush II is eliminating states' rights and individual liberties. Bush II is speaking the language of god, but acting in the manner of vengeance. When it comes to everything else, Bush really, really is that bad on his own. He didn't need any help from Clinton. Clinton left office 26 months ago. Bush is screwing up. Deal with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Learn to read, idiot. I'll put it in all caps to help you out. You may want to read this next part aloud. NUCLEAR REACTORS DO NOT EQUAL NUCLEAR BOMBS. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, AND ONE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY OR EASILY LEAD TO THE OTHER.
"illegal war" - really - tell me what international body that the US gives up its sovereignty to in order to seek approval in the conduct of international affairs. The US will not subvert itself to global rule from abroad - deal with that. Bush I, II, and Clinton all have their problems ... Bush is speaking the language of God - because he went and stood at Ground Zero - and as has been said - that changed everything. I suggest you come down from the People's Republic of Santa Cruz and visit the real world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? please enlighten us on the detail of what a breeder reactor is?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? it is what the 5 MW reactor in NK is (and what their planned 10 and 15 NW reactors would be). And it is not what the US/Jap/SK were going to build according to the Agreed Framework. word indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? Foosinho obviously does not understand what the breeder reactor byproduct is ... and what it can be used for ....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? no he does. he's countering manny's argument that a US built reactor in NK would be a breeder reactor (or I should say, I interpret his argument as such).
Re: Re: Did Clinton Create all the problems? What the hell? Aramaic? Hebrew? Arabic? Did you actually cheer when he said the US was God's gift to freedom-loving people or whatever it might have been???