History and Perspective: Bill Clinton's Presidency

OWM,

Well, since a republican president wasn't really there and Clinton was, I can only analyse him no?

And we couldn't catch the terrorists who blew up the WTC and Pentagon because THEY ALL DIED!

Finally, if I read one more whine about "lack of education funding" or any other DNC talking-point, I'll throw up.

 

And I think we should separate the issues of military intervention and counter-terrorism.

Interesting observation, but do-able...
Regarding 1993 bombing..

Yes, the man directly responsible, Yousef was captured, interestingly by the FBI, operating outside of US soil...

But who masterminded the first event?

Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent..

In the case of Ramzi Yousef, the perfectly reasonable question about who this man is and who may sponsor him has never been properly investigated.

When I put it to Albright that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing, she replied, "You may be right, but we don't do state sponsorship. We need immediate resolution."

"We prosecute individuals."

When I asked who does DO state sponsorship, if not the CIA, she answered, "Someone else in Washington."

No one seemed to know

(Interview with Vincent Cannistraro, former Chief of Counterterrorism Operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. McNeil-Lehrer Newshour,1995)

To be fair, this was Madeleine Albright, and not Clinton himself, who said, "we don't do state sponsored terrorism, we need immediate results.."

But I think it speaks volumes about where the priorities of the administration were.

Rather than investigating fully who sponsored the first attack, the administration was content to get their conviction on tv..

It was not about Clinton not spending money, because he did..It was about where the money went..

Shooting missles into the desert, and digging just enough into certain events kept the illusion that we were doing something, but we weren't really doing enough..

I mean even after the first attack, and Kohbar Towers, and the Kenyan bombing, and the USS Cole, no action was taken anywhere!

Maybe if Clinton would have found evidence about Iraq back in 1993, and USED it, we wouldn't be in the situation we would be in now...

Do we know for sure? Of course not..But I honestly think Clinton (administration)put opinion before results..

Since all those attacks happened on his watch, and we largely did nothing..I think it promoted the idea that the US had become weak..

Friendlier, yes..but weaker as well..

 

How did he do nothing? They apprehended the terrorists in the original bombing. They caught McVeigh. They increased the counter-terrorism budget.

What exactly was Clinton supposed to do? And where was you party when he was trying to do it?

Republicans like Orin Hatch and others BLOCKED Clinton's further attempts at counter-terrorism, they blocked his requests for further funding and they blocked his requests to freeze certain terrorist funds.

As for the Cole bombing, like the article states, Clinton put a huge plan together, a plan that was discarded by the Bush administration only to be implemented after 9/11.

I think you guys on the right that don't like Clinton anyways just blame Clinton like you always do. Yet you don't give any concrete examples of what Clinton SHOULD have done.

In addition, Bush STILL hasn't caught Saddam or Bin Laden, and he had the 9-11 mandate. Are your expectations of Clinton so much higher than Bush?

 

OWM, it's funny when you talk about the dangers of blind hatred, but engage in it yourself..(reference the President)

I, for one, don't find fault with Clinton, just because he happened to be Clinton..

But seriously, what was Clinton supposed to do? Let us look at this quote again:

In the case of Ramzi Yousef, the perfectly reasonable question about who this man is and who may sponsor him has never been properly investigated.

When I put it to Albright that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing, she replied, "You may be right, but we don't do state sponsorship. We need immediate resolution."

"We prosecute individuals."

When I asked who does DO state sponsorship, if not the CIA, she answered, "Someone else in Washington."

Again, I'm not suggesting that Clinton did nothing...But, for the most part he based his action off of opinion, instead of results...The bottom line, HE WANTED TO LOOK GOOD ABOVE ALL ELSE...

Again:

"You may be right, but we don't do state sponsorship. We need immediate resolution."

That says ALOT..

Remember Somalia? We got in trouble there, not because of a lack of ability, but because Clinton refused heavy support to be positioned in the region, because it would look too "tough"

From Critical Analysis on the Defeat of Task Force Ranger-Maj. Clifford E. Day:

..After a series of mortar attacks on the airfield, and numerous attacks on task force participants, Gen Montgomery felt the situation was getting out of control and submitted a request for armor support.

Sec Aspin(Clinton's Sec of Defense)disaproved the request, citing administrational concerns about "using force at an unacceptible level."

..AC-130 gunships, the only heavy weapon support the task force had, were positioned in the region at the start of the conflict, but removed by Aspin, so as to not appear "overly-militant.." However, Aspin continued to press for a political conclusion to the mission...

Again and again, elements within the administration cited things like "we need quick resolution" or "we don't want to look too tough.."

So any action that was undertaken was not based on the reality of the situation, but how it would make the President look..

Rather than actually investigating and finding out who was responsible for the 1st WTC attack, Clinton was happy to arrest one man, and take the credit..

Rather than provide heavy support to the Rangers, Clinton removed their weapons, so as to not appear militant, but still required them to fight with their hands tied..

Rather than find out who actually attacked the US embassy in Africa, Clinton just fired missles into the desert, so as to not offend anyone..

And you perpetuate such behavior-

you say "they arrested the terrorist"

Yes, but who financed Yosef? Who was pulling the strings?

Clinton never investigated too closely, because finding out who, would have required action that Clinton never would have undertaken...

Bush's actions are not perfect by any means, but at least he does what needs to be done, regardless what the "opinion" says.

What does it matter if Saddam or bin Laden themselves are caught? Sure, it would be a "sound bite moment," but their regimes have been rendered ineffective..

I for one, would rather have a President who stands by what needs to be done and gets results, rather than a President who is a media whore...

 

Well, we'll wait and see if Bush actually delivers any results.

As for Clinton, you can scream all you want to with hindsight that he could have been BETTER. Anyone could have been BETTER when they know how history turns out.

I would argue that Clinton's more calculated 'behinds the scenes' approach with terroism, increasing counter-terrorism budget, trying to freeze the funds of terrorists, being "TOO obsessed with Bin Laden" show that he was as competant as any President could have been under those circumstances.

As for Somalia, while Clinton gets his share of the blame, don't forget Bush Sr. and Colin Powell who essentially got us in there and then left Clinton with the mess with no plan and no guidance. At least Clinton provided a framework for battling terrorists, a framework that went largely IGNORED until September 11th.

In addition, there are dozens of terrorist plots and leaders that WERE apprehended under the Clinton administration. To cite a few examples where he didn't get the job done is disengenious, especially considering the fact that Bush hasn't wiped out Al Queda, hasn't caught Bin Laden, and then is in such a mess with unrelated Iraq. THis is for another thread, but Bush Sr. is largely to blame for his sons mess right now, if he had stuck with the Kurds and the others that supported the overthrow of Saddam, instead of totally ignoring them and allowing their slaugther, Bush might have a little more help in resisting the obstructionists in Iraq.

And basically, what you guys are criticizing Clinton for is not going around with his six shooter and starting wars all around the war, with the 'doesn't matter how many innocents we kill as long as we get our man' mentality, which by the way, still hasn't produced any of the promised results.

 

And I guess that is the point of this debate...We need to stop the pendullum swinging back and forth due to political nonsense..

I certainly can understand the perception that Bush appears to be a cowboy, shooting his sixgun from the hip..Has that image caused damage to our country? absolutley..

But, on the other I side, I hope you can certainly see how Clinton was too appeasing..

Our country had great foreign relations, but it is not unreasonable to say that we appeared weak..

What we ultimately need, of course, is somebody in the middle, regardless of party affiliation..

and I know you'll say, well, then vote for Clark... ...

 

Heh heh, yeah, well, I've been saying that for months!

 

What is really funny about all you conservative nimwits who want to blame Clinton for not doing enough about terrorism during his presidency are in complete disagreement with what members of Reagan's Counterterrorism team had to say about Clinton a month before he left office. In the Washington Post, they accused Clinton of being "obsessed with terrorism" and "focusing too much on Osama Bin Laden" Actually, to be fair, one of them said Clinton was right to be so focused on Bin Laden. He was right and Clinton was right.

Yes, I just got done reading Al Franken's brilliant book too.

Here's one for you....

Clinton bashers love to say Clinton didn't do enough about terrorism, which can easily be shown to be false by quoting Republicans before 9/11 (which I did above) and by actually looking at the numbers. Clinton tripled spending on terrorism. Clinton prosecuted all people involved with the first Trade Center Attack. (this was only a month into his Presidency....and no one once blamed Bush Sr. for it )

So tell me this... prior to 9/11....what had Bush Jr done to fight terrorism?? What was his administration doing to stop Bin Laden over a year after Bush took office??

 

Well, I know Bush Jr. didn't lob tomahawks at a medicine factory in Sudan in an attempt to cover his own hind.

 

Oh please....

That strike was also approved by two of Clinton's advisors who were also Republicans. I'm looking for their names right now.

So let me get this straight....

Clinton is horrible because he bombs a factory that intelligence reports told us was connected to Bin Laden. But alas, there no 'smoking gun found.'

But Bush is a swell guy for bombing an entire country based on intelligence that there was TONS of weapons of mass destruction, none of which have turned up yet. I see.... does the word "hypocritical" mean anything to you?? Typical Republican... hahahahah

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar...don't you think he's at least smart enough to know people would accuse him of trying to "Wag the Dog (Lewinsky in this case)" with that bombing. Yet he went ahead with it anyway....why is that.....hmmm could it have anything to do with what that Reagan staffer had to say about him being obsessed with terrorism??

You also never answered my question: What was Bush doing to fight terrorism for an entire year?

 

In reference to the "aspirin factory bombing":

Ever heard of William Cohen?? Republican...

From Salon.com
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, "The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people."

What about Orin Hatch or Newt Gingrich?
Also from Salon.com

"But there were different takes among Republicans. House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated plainly the assault "was the right thing to do." And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, remarked, "We should all back the president of the United States."

 

That's right Deus.

Now, I'm not saying Clinton was perfect. What I AM saying is that he was competent and as effective as anyone could be in his position.

What myself and other like Deus are trying to point out is that it is totally hypocritical to 'blame' Clinton for being weak on terrorism, and then to praise the GOP. Clinton had a better counter-terrorism record than both Reagan (whose record was terrible) and Bush Sr, and certainly Bush Jr, pre 9/11.

It's hypocritical of the right to be accusing Clinton of being too focused on Terrorism pre 9/11 and then accuse him of being to soft on Terrorism post 9/11.

 

I thought this thread would have been flooded with lists of the things Bush Jr was doing pre-9/11 to fight terrorism and find Osama Bin-Laden.




guess not....

 

I think I have supplied enough information to show that this just isn't true..

 

I wouldn't say Clinton depleted the military, like followers of Sean Hannity would like to believe.

I would argue he shifted spending to match the times.

Let's look at an excerpt from Sean Hannity's book in which he tries to show Clinton depleted the military by comparing his spending to Reagan's...

In 1986, Reagan asked for 840 new tanks. In 1996, Clinton asked for none.

In 1986, Reagan asked for 399 new planes. In 1996, Clinton asked for 34.

In 1986, Reagan asked for 40 new ships. In 1996, Clinton asked for 6.


Wow...looks to me like Clinton was spending a lot less than Reagan...that military hating b*stard.

Mind you, these are numbers that Hannity brought forward in HIS book to show just how much Clinton cut back on the military. In his infintie wisdom, Hannity thinks these numbers best make the case for showing how horrible Clinton was.

But wait....

Let's look at some numbers presented in Al Franken's new book that compare Clinton's numbers to Bush Jr's....

In 2001, Clinton requested no new tanks. In contrast, in 2002, President Bush requested a whopping ZERO new tanks.

In 2001, President Clinton requested 52 new planes. But Bush, who loves the military so much more, wanted 58 new planes.

In 2001, military hating Clinton requested a pitiful 6 new ships. But President Bush, who loves the military, and didn't go AWOL from his champagne squandron in Texas during Vietnam, put the Clinton administation in its place in 2002 by ordering 5 new ships.

hmmmm.....

So lemme get this straight....Hannity tries to make his case that Clinton slashed the military by comparing him to Reagan numbers from 10 years earlier. But when compared to Bush numbers from last year, I'd say Clinton fared pretty well. So what gives?? I thought Clinton ransacked our military?? If that were the case, I don't see much evidence that Bush did much to build it back up.

As franken points out...Clinton realized, as Bush also probably did, since the fall of the Soviet Union, we don't really need to spend billions of dollars on tanks and heavey artillery for a full scale war throughout Eastern Europe that aint gonna happen.

the fact is, the military Bush used to wipe out Afghanistan is the military that CLINTON handed to him. It's also the same military that was used to wipe out Iraq. As I've shown, there is no evidence Bush significantly increased ANYTHING in the military in his time in office. And even if he did (he didn't) increase spending significantly, it would not have made a difference in either conflict. But please, don't take my word for it... I am but a mere plebian. Take it from someone who knows much better than I....

"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow....And when that war [the first Gulf War] ended, the first thing I did was place a phone call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan.
-Dick Cheney, the Southern Center for International Studies, August 2000

Checkmate!

Like I said, don't take my word for it...I've never been a Secretary of Defense.....what would I know?!?! But Cheney...If Cheney says the an administration is pretty much stuck with the military that is handed to them, who am I to question that ?

So on the one hand, you've got a former Secretary of Defense thanking the prior administration for the military given to them...and then you got morons tryign to say Clinton made our military practically uselss, which of course is untrue, based on what Cheney said.

 

I wouldn't say CLinton depleted the military, like followers of Sean Hannity would like to believe.

I cannot stand Sean Hannity.

However, I grew up in the military, so I know the effect of the Clinton years.

It has little to do with how many planes or ships they bought, but rather the money devoted to pay and benefits. Housing was falling apart, equipment was failing, and half the enlisted soldiers lived below the national poverty line. And what was the solution Clinton and General Shinseki came up with? Berets. Not higher pay, not better housing, not reliable equipment. Berets.




Anata Baka?!

 

And soldiers are much better off and happier under Bush?? Living below the poverty line? I work with tons of guys who were in the military. They were doing just fine and actually miss the money they were able to make while in the military (during the Clinton years). Living in poverty?? It's Clinton's fault people made bad decisions with the money they were given? It's his fault people lived beyond their means? It's his fault people had more kids than they could afford? Please....

I've noticed no one can presnet any facts to contradict anything I've brought up. All I see is, "well he sucked....he cut pay...." Show me where Bush has done different and better!

 

And soldiers are much better off and happier under Bush??

They're getting there.

Living below the poverty line?

Yup.

I work with tons of guys who were in the military. They were doing just fine and actually miss the money they were able to make while in the military (during the Clinton years).

Officer or Enlisted?

Living in poverty??

Yup.

It's Clinton's fault people made bad decisions with the money they were given? It's his fault people lived beyond their means? It's his fault people had more kids than they could afford? Please....

It's Clinton's fault they weren't paid the way they should have been paid to meet with rising inflation. It's Clinton's fault that, rather than getting better pay and housing, they were forced to live in many sub-standard houses.




Anata Baka?!

 

I'm still not seeing how it's Bill Clinton's fault that people can't manage their money.

And you must have missed my Cheney quote above. As he said, thank the PREVIOUS administration for your military. If he wants to thank Reagan for his Gulf War I army, then Clinton's military should blame Bush Sr. for their conditions. And Bush Jr. and Donnie Rumsfeld should call up Bill Clinton and thank him for the military that Bill Clinton gave them (per Dick Cheney).

Note to Bill Clinton: do not hold your breath waiting for the Bush or Rummie to call you....


And my veteran friends were enlisted...

 

I'm still not seeing how it's Bill Clinton's fault that people can't manage their money.

It's tough to make a living (often overseas) when you aren't paid enough money to begin with.

And the difference is that Clinton had 8 years, and often voiced his dislike for the military. He did not respect the men and women in uniform.




Anata Baka?!

 

Show me a quote where he said anything remotley negative about the military. I know you all love to accuse him of being anti-military, but show me where he said anything less than neutral.

And did Clinton CUT pay? I honestly don't know. Show me where he cut pay if you want to complain about pay.

You also don't seem to want to ignore the whole "cheney-last administration" thing....

And what do you mean Bush is trying? Trying what? Try not...do or do not....

Sorry ..couldnt resist.

As the numbers mentioned above show, Bush aint done much different than Clinton did, so how can you say Bush is more pro military than Clinton?? Show me some numbers to support yur assertions...

 

hahahaha....

don't make claims you cant back up with facts....it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about...


Geez...I can hardly keep up with all these negative things Bill Clinton said about our military.




Red-Seven: behave.

 

I'm still not seeing how it's Bill Clinton's fault that people can't manage their money.

Pretty hard when you're filling the National Gov't coffers thanks to his tax increase.

 

That's all you got? Clinton raised taxes? And to top it all off, the Clinton tax increases went almost exclusively to the top income earners, not the low income earners we were talking about earlier (you know the ones in military supposedly living at the poverty line?? I didn't know the poverty line was above $100,000 a year, since that is who was affected by Clinton's tax increases)

you must be gettiong your info from people like this guy...

http://www.annapolisinstitute.net/archives/commentary/pb1993143.html

Yeah, tell me about. Those years after 1993 sure were tough on all of us. I remember the soup lines from so many people being out of work vividly....hahahahaa

Next time, try bringing up something relevant.

And I'm not going to even mention the whole, "read my lips...no new taxes" thing from Bush Sr. Ooops.... I just did.

 

From the site:

Fuel switching from coal (which now provides 57% of the nation's electricity) to natural gas will raise utility bills through the ceiling, including the cost of electricity for industry -- killing jobs, slowing growth and reducing our international competitiveness.

Pathetic.