I know Republicans love to disparage Clinton over his military policy because (1) they're somewhat out of touch with reality and (2) when the WTC was attacked under Clinton's term, it remained standing, but (3) when the WTC was attacked under Bush's term, even one of the towers that wasn't attacked collapsed. Somehow this remarkable failure on GWB's part is translated in the minds of the faithful into a victory of Bush and failure of Clinton.

• When we went into Kosovo, we left when Clinton said we would, without loosing even 1 American solider.
• In Iraq, we loose 3 American soldiers a day and half the boots on the ground belong to mercenaries.
• Both wars are equally irrelevant to American interests and security.

It seems, true to their mission, Republicans define success in terms of failure. For example, GWB claims to be a war president because he was too fascinated to put down My Pet Goat when America came under attack.

Clinton wasn't great, but he was better than Bush. How does Ronny Reags fit in?

• He knocked over a fruit stand with 3 aircraft carriers, and called it Operation Urgent Fury.
• He convinced his faithful that he destroyed a dieing nation by having Alzheimer's.
• He lied to the American people and Congress in order to fund terrorists.

I understand a lot of people out there are used to judging facts on gut feeling. But when you look objectively, the situation changes drastically. Good thing most Conservatives aren't used to or comfortable with objective facts. Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Seriously, you cant possibly really believe the stuff you repeat. Its like watching Michael Moore and accepting it as documented fact. I find it especially disturbing because I like to believe in the intelligence of the American populace, yet it seems the lunatics have come out the woodwork with the release of propaganda films like:
An Inconvenient un-truth
Fahrenheit 911
Loose Change

The only reason we are in Iraq is because Clinton didn't enforce terms of surrender agreed to by Hussein from the first golf war. Al Queda bombed several U.S. embassies during Clinton without consequence. Like Kennedy, he meddled in nonsense we didn't need to be involve in (Somalia), then cut and run when the theater got heated. He allowed our human intelligence agencies to be dismantled and used for economic spying missions, which is directly related to our lack of fore-warning on September 11th, 2001. He watched Rwandans massacre each other by the hundreds of thousands with machettes while gingerly joining a joint help program with Kosovo(Racial Prejudice?). He withdrew direct monitoring of N.Korea and basically allowed them to build their nuclear weapons.

So his great foreign policy achievement is Kosovo? Here are a list of the achievements of Bush and Reagan.

1) Ended the Cold War
2) Brought an end to Lybias state sponsored terrorism
3) Brought down the free reign of the Taliban to train terrorists
4) Enforced the U.N. declarations regarding Iraq, removing Hussein from power
5) Brought consequences to many of Al Queda's top leaders
6) Created a growing economy from an economy bankrupt by the web 1.0 bubble burst, Gore's creation of election uncertainty, and terrorist attacks on and destruction of major U.S. centers of business.
7) Gained immediate compliance from Pakistan, a state sponsor of terror.

Clinton's accomplishment to casualty ratio wouldn't even appear on a chart next to Bush or Reagan's.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Seriously, you cant possibly really believe the stuff you repeat. Its like watching Michael Moore and accepting it as documented fact.

So you don't agree that no American soldiers were lost in Kosovo then? Or do you think the thousands of dead Americans don't exist, like some kind of liberal plot being perpetrated by C-SPAN? Or, honestly, you just don't like the truth, which is that Clinton wasn't perfect, but unlike Bush he was at least competent.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

So you don't agree that no American soldiers were lost in Kosovo then? Or do you think the thousands of dead Americans don't exist, like some kind of liberal plot being perpetrated by C-SPAN? Or, honestly, you just don't like the truth, which is that Clinton wasn't perfect, but unlike Bush he was at least competent.

Well, I think I agree with almost everything in your quote here. No Americans lost in Kosovo. Check. Thousands of Americans lost between Afghanistan and Iraq. Check. Clinton wasn't perfect. Check. Bush isn't perfect. Check. What I don't agree with is the spin that adds those facts together and somehow comes out with the idea that Clinton is a better president than either Reagan or Bush. I actually liked Clinton, as he was fairly fiscally conservative for a Democrat. I'd say he scored fairly low on how he handled the foreign policy issues he was presented, and those issues don't come close to comparing with what either Dubya or Reagan had to face.

We haven't had a really great president since FDR. And even he had his problems. Because of him we have a presidential term limit of 2. Reagan may have won a 3rd term, but so might have Clinton. We'll never know. I don't think Reagan deserves all of the credit for the USSR dissolving. They did much of it to themselves. Yes, we helped them, but we didn't single handedly bring them down. We just took credit for it. The economy always seems to be worse under Republican administrations. Many accuse democrats of taxing and spending, but Republicans tend to spend and deficit. And the economy is extremely bad right now after 7 years of the current administration (though it's not all their fault, but they haven't been able to contain it yet either). The dollar has almost hit bottom, and though that might bring in more business to the US, a lot of our largest corporations have shipped loads of labor offshore, so even if it does bring in new money, a portion of it won't directly benefit the USA. Plus, extremism is on the rise and the extreme left vs the extreme right will do nothing but hurt all of us. We need to remember how to compromise. But compromise between extremists is a rare thing.

Originally Posted by cbwm

No Americans lost in Kosovo. Check. Thousands of Americans lost between Afghanistan and Iraq. Check. I'd say he scored fairly low on how he handled the foreign policy issues he was presented, and those issues don't come close to comparing with what either Dubya

LOL! Ok, if facing worse odds and doing far better against them makes Clinton the whipping boy of Republicans who are confused over foreign policy, then what should the standard be? Obviously to be counted as a decent president by conservatives you have to flush the American economy down the toilette, and ideally get American troops killed, if that's at all possible. What else can a person do to hurt our country and be cheered as a hero by the right?

I thought you argued on an earlier thread that neither Clinton nor Bush were responsible for the economy's ups and downs. Now you argue the opposite (flush the economy down the toilet). Pick a line and run with it. Bush has done overall very well with the bankrupt economy he inherited. The burst of the housing bubble is a lot like the burst of the internet bubble. If the first was Bubba's fault, then we can say the second was Bush's fault. Otherwise, you'll have to admit Bush did a hell of a job recovering from the wrecked economy Clinton walked away from.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I thought you argued on an earlier thread that neither Clinton nor Bush were responsible for the economy's ups and downs.

You thought wrong.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Pick a line and run with it.

Then remember which line I'm running with. Honestly, that's not your job to make an Excel sheet of my positions - but you've got me confused with someone else here.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Bush has done overall very well with the bankrupt economy he inherited.

Bush inherited a much stronger economy than he's leaving behind. Bush inherited a fairly balanced budget, and leaves the worst debt and deficit in America's history. I know it burns you up to admit Clinton was gloriously brilliant in handling our economy. Just like some people hate to admit there's a moon. (Revisionism is at least entertaining!)

But the hysterical part is that the guy who said "So what if Ken Lay slept over Bush's mansion more than 20 times and wrote some of the energy deregulation legislation - it's mean to say Bush had anything to do with Enron" is complaining about what he perceives as "spin". Which, of course, is plain facts that lead to the obvious conclusion - instead of the type of spin Fixed News pukes out every hour.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You thought wrong.

/sigh. Your own words say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Bush inherited a much stronger economy than he's leaving behind. Bush inherited a fairly balanced budget, and leaves the worst debt and deficit in America's history. I know it burns you up to admit Clinton was gloriously brilliant in handling our economy. Just like some people hate to admit there's a moon. (Revisionism is at least entertaining!)

Revisionism is indeed entertaining. Read your old post, and then read your newest revision. Regarding the "Stronger Economy", federal tax receipts (reality)argue with your position.


Bush's government actually earned more than Clintons. And here is the "In your face" part of that message. He did it while lowering taxes. He did it without the help of an internet bubble.

Of course Bush spent more, but successful wars cost money. At least we haven't had any attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, unlike Clinton who allowed two embassy bombings to go unanswered, and allowed Saddam to violate the terms of his treaty without consequences.

Clinton's irresponsibility is as much to blame for the wars the U.S. is engaged in today as Bush is. Its the same predicament Obama finds himself in. He says, "Lets pull out of Iraq, and if terrorism sets up a permanent home there, we'll go back in". Only he'll wait for a Republican to be elected to clean up his mess, so he can sit on the sidelines and call him/her a warmonger. Useless turds.

No matter how you want to spin it, Bush is blindingly incompetent in military and foreign policy affairs, while Bill Clinton was remarkably good at both. And that's the bottom line, although I do appreciate the attempt at distraction from the subject!

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

No matter how you want to spin it, Bush is blindingly incompetent in military and foreign policy affairs, while Bill Clinton was remarkably good at both. And that's the bottom line, although I do appreciate the attempt at distraction from the subject!

Well, I wouldn't want to distract from the subject. Bush SUCKS!!!! Clinton RULES!!!!! Hey, did you see my political compass reading? I came in left of center!!! And on the libertarian side vs authoritarian side!! Should I send into the politburo for my card?