It's pretty much a done deal...

[timkell]

he was lucky. :P

No, if he was so lucky, he wouldn't have gotten caught with his favorite cigar in that sow's coochie.

It would have been somebody attractive. :wink:

You gotta think, for every girl where something was made public, Slicky Willy must have had at least four others in his stable.

He really tried his best to enjoy his time in the oval office, that's for sure. :wink:

[krelm]

he was lucky. :P

No, if he was so lucky, he wouldn't have gotten caught with his favorite cigar in that sow's coochie.

It would have been somebody attractive. :wink:

[Civic_Zen]

[Jenks]

he was lucky. :P

[timkell]

clinton!
Devon, you beat me too it buddy. Clinton's two terms were times of great economic growth and prosperity.

of which he takes undue credit for. the tech boom an dot com frenzy drove the economy under the clinton administration, which was set in motion before he even took office. i'll give clinton some credit, but never for the economy he resided over. in fact, clinton had the same unemployment rate 5.4% in 1996 as bush does now in 2004. the difference now is is the market isn't over valued like it was in the 90s...much more realistic.

Let me guess, Reagan's genius was the driver behind the economic boom of the 80s, too, but somehow, Clinton just got lucky.

Clinton was the first president with the balls to give us a surplus and start paying down the debt since before FDR, I believe. He could have used all the cash to spread pork left and right, like most politiians do. Don't give me that crap about "it was the Republican majority in Congress." In one of the most economically successful decades this country has ever known, he kept taxes at the same rate, and eliminated many deductions, something Republicans most certainly did not want. His political might got that done. After getting rid of the deductions, he slammed all that extra money into paying off the debt. The debt reduction helped continue to fuel the surge in the economy, and it would have been a great thing for our future if it continued.

Unfortunately, under Bush, the national debt has risen 40%. In times of war, you need to spend, but I contend it was economic negligence to ram through a tax cut when we were about to go to war. All citizens would have undersood that we needed to bear the burden of the war. Instead, our grandkids will have to.

If Bush can turn Iraq into a free nation, I'll be the first to jump up and say "holy shit. dman good job, Bush." I criticize him now because it doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon, and he missed by a wide mark in estimating the ease of the task. But if he gets it done, it will surely be one of the greatest accomplishments of any president in recent memory.

Either way, you don't call any President "lucky", especially a two term president. Whatever happens on his watch, you give him credit for, good or bad. Reagan gets credit for ending the Cold War, while some dumb liberals like to say the USSR was collapsing anyway.

Calling Clinton lucky for the boom of the 90s is just as ridiculous.

[timkell]

yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.

Yep...and that's a fact. So now Bush is cleaning up the mess he should have handled while he was busy getting head from a fat skank. But Bush is the bad guy.

Give me a fucking break. Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a bomb. He did the most he could at the time. The country was in no mood to start a war with terrorists until after 9/11. That's true of both administrations.

The Bush administration reduced efforts against terrorism before 9/11. I'm not blaming them for that. There was no appetite within the American electorate for war. Before 9/11, Ashcroft, in fact, told members of the FBI he no longer wanted to hear about Al Qaeda. I'm not blaming him for that either.

To try to blame that on Clinton is ridiculous. Bush had almost a year before 9/11 and efforts were reduced, not increased. The evidence is clear on that, and I don't blame him for it at all. It was a different time, and both parties had no idea how grave the threat was. Shame on both of them.

Why does everyone on here have to take one side or the other? Every leader has had plusses and minuses. Admit to them both.

[evangelion]

yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.

Yep...and that's a fact. So now Bush is cleaning up the mess he should have handled while he was busy getting head from a fat skank. But Bush is the bad guy.

[Yao]

Heheh, good signature Civic.

I know about the Mogadishu debacle, in fact, that's the reason the US refused to act when the genocide took place in Rwanda: the US didn't want to have anything to do with Africa anymore, and it has been like that untill today: they did not respond to Liberia's cry for help last year either. It wouldn't be fair to say this makes the US a bad country: they lost their soldiers (in Somalia) while the UN sat there doing nothing. Also in the Rwandan case, the UN is to blame, prolly even more than the US. I've studied that case quite thoroughly, and it has shocked me how guilty the international community factually was in that horrible slaughter.

About Osama: if he was deported, it may have had less to do with the American efforts (or the lack of that) to get their hands on them, but maybe more with a political gesture to the other Arabian countries. Think of how the Islamic world would've reacted if an Arabian/Muslim would be handed over to the US...I think we need to search this one out before blaming it on Billy.

BTW: gonna post the link to my first mix on [ms].

[Civic_Zen]

Yes it is true. Look up the first bombing of the world trade center in 1993. I forget which government it was, pretty sure it was one of the middle eastern governments who were then going to hand Osama over to us for his perpetration in that act, which Clinton declined. Instead Osama was deported from that country. Was it Saudi Arabia? I know he was deported and banned from Saudi but I can't remember if this was for the same actions. I'd look it up but I'm too lazy right now.

You might also want to look at his actions in Africa, namely Somalia. If he would have followed through with the things we were trying to do over there, then at least the soldiers that died for that cause would not have died in vain. We lost a lot of good men, and for nothing really. Clinton kept running and never finished anything he started. Thus, 9/11, and thus the war on Terror abroad. Keep in mind I'm not blaming it ALL on him, but definetely a lot of it was him.

I will also add that yes Clinton was a great President despite this. Namely the Internet Privacy Act of 1992 or 1993 (I forget which). Which was very important for the Internet to take off the way it did. He also did many other good things.

#1 Harry Truman, the last great democrat.

Seen my quote lately Jenks. Thats what made Truman such a great man, he knew what his job was as a President, and didn't let it go to his head. :wink:

[Jenks]

yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.

as for him being a great politician. indeed he was. best president we've ever had? not a chance.

#1 Harry Truman, the last great democrat.

[Yao]

That true about Osama? Gonna look that one up...nevertheless he has done more good internationally than many other politicians I know. Carter tries, but I think overall Clinton is more down-to-earth.

[Civic_Zen]

Your entiteled to your opinion, but your very very wrong. 9/11 happened because Clinton did nothing the first time around. He even had Osama Bin Laden turned over to him for it in 1993 and decided there wasn't enough evidence against him. It was his fault Bush is having to do so much now to curb terrorism.

[Yao]

Oh, you're going to flame me for this one:

He was the best President you ever had. Diplomat to the bone, he actually almost had a peace deal between Isael and Palestina done. He was smart as hell. I think he didn't do better than any of the other presidents domestically, but internationally speaking he was, and still is a fucking grade A politician. I'd really like to see him replacing Kofi Annan, but with Bush still in that's not gonna happen I'm afraid.

He let himself be sucked off by some broad: that shows he still knows what's good for a man

Now I'm gonna get it...

[asdf_admin]

He was a good liar. That is all he gets credit for. O, and getting head in the Oval.

[BSully828]

Really good point here. The republicans held control of the senate and the house while Bush was president, but for some reason the US didn't see the same economic growth as we did under Clinton. Your explanation just shows that Clinton was a great leader and could manipulate a senate and house that was primarily republican.

1 - 9/11
2 - Impending recession
3 - Having to bail out numerous companies in response to #1
4 - Having to fund an international war effort in response to #1

I'd like to see any president/congress deal with those four issues and walk away in the black.

I don't know about Clinton being a great leader but he was a very smart politician. He knew he was outnumbered and tried to work with what he had. What exactly (as far as economics) did he lead during his two terms? He pretty much sat back and let growing industry proceed unabated - which was the smart thing to do. He didn't manipulate shit, he took a step back and allowed conservative republicans to work out the deficit they inherited. Just because he was in office during that time doesn't automatically earn him credit for what happened - should I take credit when the Pats win just because I was in the stands?

He had the benefit of being in office during one of the most prosperous and peaceful times in American history, you could argue that even Perot would have enjoyed the same success.