Bill Clinton's Legacy

[TheMason]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this topic yet, it seems as if many on this forum seem more liberal and/or dissatisfied with the Bush Administration.

I would hope that this discussion would avoid more emotional and irrelevent topics such as his reported womanizing. Also can we have a more intellectual discussion without all the "mother fuckers" and what nots?

Personnally I do not think his legacy will be remembered as that great. The economy had started rebounding during the 6-9 months BEFORE Clinton's 1992 election. (Not that Bush had anything to do with it, the economy runs on a cycle of its own and if any US government body has anything to do with it it would be the Congress).

Secondly, I think his negligence in the proper use of the US military helped give us a reputation as being weak and ineffective to people like Bin-Laden and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/1/04 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote: I would hope that this discussion would avoid more emotional and irrelevent topics such as his reported womanizing. Also can we have a more intellectual discussion without all the "mother fuckers" and what nots?

no.

Personnally I do not think his legacy will be remembered as that great. The economy had started rebounding during the 6-9 months BEFORE Clinton's 1992 election. (Not that Bush had anything to do with it, the economy runs on a cycle of its own and if any US government body has anything to do with it it would be the Congress).

Regardless, he's going to be known for the economy. People associate teh prez with the economy, even if it is established by former presidents or completely independant of them.

The only other things he did besides be prez during a 'good economy' was.. well, hmm.. what? lewinsky. bam!

no one can name anything else. He buddied up with China even more, a great human-rights minded country.. Leveled off military spending somewhat, but didn't do enough to turn the US away from it's cold war, militaristic policies..

Secondly, I think his negligence in the proper use of the US military helped give us a reputation as being weak and ineffective to people like Bin-Laden and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

Nearly all of the recent presidents have had something to do with todays terrorists. Dubya had given afghanistan millions the summer of '01 supposedly for the 'drug war'. Clinton did his share. bush teh 1st, regan, carter. come on. If it's not the middle east, then its latin america

[Quiche]

At 1/1/04 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote: and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

1: What the hell did Clinton have to do Kim? If Kim's dad was dictator, and he was being trained from birth to be a dictator, and elections in North Korea are a mockery, what affect did Clinton have on North Korea's leadership? Please tell me. I'd like to know.

2: "Rouge nations" have always been around since the beginning of the Cold War. Rouge nations will always be around till true democracy becomes available to everyone. Given as how most "rouge nations" are Communist, former Communist, or Middle East, its only natural for them to hate us. Clinton had no more affect on them than Reagan or Bush Senior, both of whom made a career out of tampering with the Middle East and Latin America.

[FUNKbrs]

"rouge" is make-up

"rogue" is outside of control

Just a quick lesson in grammar.

[JoS]

Lets put this question out there. Who wold people rather have as a president, BUsh Jr or Clinton? Me I would pick Bill. He only screwed one woman, Bush screwed the whole world.

[Quiche]

At 1/1/04 11:39 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: "rouge" is make-up

"rogue" is outside of control

Just a quick lesson in grammar.

How do you know I wasn't speaking figuratively? I could have been implying that their soil had been stained with the blood of factionists or that many of them had Communist regimes at some point. Or maybe I was acknowegding the way FOXNews often colors all the evil countries red on their world maps?

Or maybe I have the spelling skills of a 3rd grader. =/

[JoS]

Man Im not even gonna bother trying to argue the whole there have been no true communist country thing anymore. atleasst not today.

[anthrex]

At 1/1/04 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

Secondly, I think his negligence in the proper use of the US military helped give us a reputation as being weak and ineffective to people like Bin-Laden and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

Well looking back at the military that was built under the Clinton administration, Bush was able to take it and do what the British and Soviets could not do and that was take over Afghanistan, Bush did not add any more funding or implement any new programs to change the army that Clinton built (clinton did increase the military's budget from Bush Sr. not cut it) up to defeat the Taliban.

As for bin Laden and terrorists Clinton had a better anti terror record than lets say Reagon who had more Americans killed by Radical Islamic terrorists than in either Bush Sr. or Clinton combined. Under Bush Sr. radical Islamic terrorists were planning the world trade center bombing (Clinton was only president for 38 days) Clinton thwarted terrorist attacks including plots to blow up 12 US jetliners simultaneously, attacks against the UN headquarters, FBI Building and many more. He double counterterrorism budget for the FBi over previous administations also. ( there is a lot more)

Also the Clinton adminstration submitted a proposal to the Bush Jr. Administration that outlined things such as break up al Qaeda cells, freeze its assets, give aid to countries having problems iwth al Qaeda, and most importantly significantly scale up covert action against Afghanistan to eliminate al Qaeda training camps (Time magazine August 12, 2002). These suggestions were ignored until 9/11 occured.

Oh yea I almost forgot that Clinton put out a hit on Osama bin Laden to be killed (also remember that Clinton is not going to kill bin Laden himself) by any people or person

I am not quite sure where you are getting the idea that our military was weak or ineffective (that was not the case)

[JoS]

Newbie post of the week right here. Congrats.

[Dagodevas]

At 1/1/04 11:53 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Me I would pick Bill. He only screwed one woman, Bush screwed the whole world.

It seems everyone keeps forgetting about a little thing called Bosnia.

[Quiche]

At 1/2/04 02:57 AM, Dagodevas wrote: It seems everyone keeps forgetting about a little thing called Bosnia.

Bosnia was a NATO peacekeeping operation. We went in, blew shit up, and left.

Iraq was an invasion with comparitively little international support. Iraq was peaceful at the time. We're still in there.

The difference is huge.

[Dagodevas]

At 1/2/04 03:21 PM, Quiche wrote: Bosnia was a NATO peacekeeping operation. We went in, blew shit up, and left.

Sounds like an excuse to me. Saying “We went in there to blow that city up to prevent war” is no better an excuse than “We went in there to liberate that country and preserve the safety of the free world”. Clinton and Blair gave the same “good war” crap when they pulled the same stunt in Yugoslavia, and just like Iraq, civilians are getting blown to pieces, US soldiers were killed, and it was expensive. And don’t forget the cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan. Oh, and remember when the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed?

…And isn’t it just a coincidence that some of this was happening during the Lewinsky scandal? Can you say “wag the dog”?

[TheMason]

At 1/1/04 11:22 PM, Quiche wrote:

At 1/1/04 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote: and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

1: What the hell did Clinton have to do Kim? If Kim's dad was dictator, and he was being trained from birth to be a dictator, and elections in North Korea are a mockery, what affect did Clinton have on North Korea's leadership? Please tell me. I'd like to know.

2: "Rouge nations" have always been around since the beginning of the Cold War. Rouge nations will always be around till true democracy becomes available to everyone. Given as how most "rouge nations" are Communist, former Communist, or Middle East, its only natural for them to hate us. Clinton had no more affect on them than Reagan or Bush Senior, both of whom made a career out of tampering with the Middle East and Latin America.

Here's the thing, if you look at the way that Rogue nations view America and its ability to defend itself. For example, if you look at how bin-Laden views America: He defeated the Soviet army, and the Soviet army is alot more tough than the American army. Therefore the American military does not pose a serious threat to him.

Why? Because the American people does not have the stomache for high American casualties. This was proved by Clinton's actions in Somalia. We won the battle of Mogadishu, we accomplished the objectives of the mission and sustained few casualties when compared to the awesome amount of firepower against us. It was Clinton's actions afterward that has diminished the perception of American power. Task Force Ranger was withdrawn from Somalia, all war criminals were released and what progress we made in that country was lost.

This emboldens people like Kim. From all that I've read about N. Korea is that they do not think we have the intestinal fortitude to fight.

This is the Clinton legacy.

[POPL]

Clinton did nothing more than bring our country to it's knees. Selling secrets to Chinse, spreading our military allo over God's green earth. Having affiars with many women. C'mon, clinton was never a good president. the only reason some people like him cause liberals took over and democrats rained supreme.

Now at Bush and look what he has acclomplished. He liberated a country that should been saved 12 years ago.

Clinton's legacy was bullshit. I hope he takes a gun to himself.

[waxxpotato]

If you don't want to blame Clinton for the booming economy, you can at least blame the Democratic dominated Congress that helped if not did it. If you don't want to blame Clinton for his focuses in domestic prosperity I.E. community police, surplus he built all while fighting the newly republican dominated congress lead by the fiendishly evil Newit I guess you can ignore it.

But what has Bush done? Besides be a willing slave to big oil? His first seven months in office 42% of it was spent on vacation. He cut funding from library funds and reading programs, the very reading programs that his own mother spend a lot of time working with. He lead a war (does not depend if you think we should have gone or not) despite what the world thought.

Sure Clinton did some pretty crappy things but at least he didn't blame it all on the Bush before him. Now a days everything is Clinton's fault...His legacy will be shadowed by his political opponents rhetoric. The goods he did are easily forgotten for the over blown bad's. What's worse Screwing an Intern or Screwing the world?

[JoS]

I also fail to see how having an affair makes Clinton any less of a good president then say being a former alcoholic. There was a large base of international support for Bosnia, Iraq had like three countries backing the US. Allied deaths were very low in bosnia, versus Iraq. Lets not forget he was the most popular presudebt when he left office.

[POPL]

I fail to see y u stand up to Clinton. I will never like him but I do respect ur opinions.
What I said before still stands.

[JoS]

First of all I believe you ment to say you fail to see why I stand up for Clinton, not why I stand up to Clilnton. Second of all, you say Clinton should have taken out Sadam. I ask this question for you then, why does that fall upon CLinton, when daddy Bush was the one who went halfway to Baghdad and then turned around. So really its a Bush who didnt do the job. During the Clinton years Iraq had cooled off abit, less genocide and invading other countries than on Daddy's watch. Do you have any proof Clinton sold evidence to the Chinese? What about BUsh Sr selling weapons to rogue nations like Iran and IRAQ?

[OpIvy420]

At 1/4/04 01:01 AM, BlueEyedFreak wrote: the only reason some people like him cause liberals took over and democrats rained supreme.

When did this happen? I must have missed out on it. In the middle of Clinton's presidency, the "Republican Revolution" took place, with the GOP taking control of Congress, and they never really lost control since then.

[Ravens-Grin]

Just a side note, didn't Reagan give Iraqis weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. Didn't Reagan also put the Taliban in power?

[waxxpotato]

The democrats had a strong control over the Congress for a little over ten years before Newit's "contract with America" that lead to the GOP taking over.

People are still just really ticked at how they could never really smear Clinton's reputation. They tried to hit him with everything but he would only get popular, so they put up the masquerade that he is very much hated, or disliked.

[fatrat883]

Whan's the last time you've seen anything about B.Clinton in the news being blamed for something

[TheMason]

Well looking back at the military that was built under the Clinton administration, Bush was able to take it and do what the British and Soviets could not do and that was take over Afghanistan, Bush did not add any more funding or implement any new programs to change the army that Clinton built (clinton did increase the military's budget from Bush Sr. not cut it) up to defeat the Taliban.

As for bin Laden and terrorists Clinton had a better anti terror record than lets say Reagon who had more Americans killed by Radical Islamic terrorists than in either Bush Sr. or Clinton combined. Under Bush Sr. radical Islamic terrorists were planning the world trade center bombing (Clinton was only president for 38 days) Clinton thwarted terrorist attacks including plots to blow up 12 US jetliners simultaneously, attacks against the UN headquarters, FBI Building and many more. He double counterterrorism budget for the FBi over previous administations also. ( there is a lot more)

Also the Clinton adminstration submitted a proposal to the Bush Jr. Administration that outlined things such as break up al Qaeda cells, freeze its assets, give aid to countries having problems iwth al Qaeda, and most importantly significantly scale up covert action against Afghanistan to eliminate al Qaeda training camps (Time magazine August 12, 2002). These suggestions were ignored until 9/11 occured.

Oh yea I almost forgot that Clinton put out a hit on Osama bin Laden to be killed (also remember that Clinton is not going to kill bin Laden himself) by any people or person

I am not quite sure where you are getting the idea that our military was weak or ineffective (that was not the case)

First off, I'm speaking as a member of the US military and someone who has given this issue extensive study. The simple fact that things were being planned under Reagan & both Bushes does not really prove anything. Radical groups will be planning terrorist act no matter who is the President.

What is important is that Clinton did not pay adequate attention to anything that related to National Defense or foreign policy especially during the early stages of his Presidency. His base of support was liberals who were fundamentaly against taking any type of para- or full-scale military action. Furthermore, it was not a priority in the polls something Clinton built his administration around. Clinton had several opportunities to stop bin-Laden as early as 1993 but did nothing. Until 1993 bin-Laden was unknown to US intelligence agencies.

As for the order to execute bin-Laden that came later (1998) and with so many restrictions on how, when and where he could be killed that it made carrying out this order largely unfeasible. In effect it was only more smoke and mirrors from Clinton that really did not do anything.

Lastly about the military funding. The military budget will always increase no matter who is in power, why? This is called inflation. However, under Clinton his increases in the budget were not enough to keep the spear sharp. Commanders are faced with the issue of "doing more with less" (a concept that came about as result of Clinton's policies) and lacked the resources to fight a FULL-scale war on two fronts (fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count, what counts would be two significant theaters such as we fought in WWII). CONT.

[TheMason]

Under Clinton military members en masse started qualifying for welfare.

Lastly Clinton did not give a rat's ass about the military. If he did following the Battle of Mogadishu, he would have sent MORE troops into the country instead of pulling out even though we won. His actions here showed more disdain for the lives of the American Servicemen and women more than anything else. Instead following a battle WHICH WE WON he pulled us out in defeat negating ALL the lives lost in the conflict. THIS weakened our military might because it showed our current and potential enemies that we are NOT a force to be reckoned with because our President has no backbone and will fold at the US casualty. Bill Clinton was a coward that did far more damage to this country than what little good.

I don't know where you got your information Anthrex, but it is inadaquate. You speak with authority on that which you do not really understand. Read more so you stop sucking,

Your intellectual lord and master,
The Mason.

[JoS]

IM not agreeing or disagreeing with you since I dont not know alot about Clintons military spending. However you must also see his point. 21 or so top notch soliders kille din one incident. A figure unheard of since probally Vietnam (maybe IM wrong). Now if he continued to persue this campaign more lives would undoubtedly been lost. This misson had little impact on national security so rather isking lives of well trained soliders which probally didnt come cheap (the training) on what the US deemed a non-esential mission, they just left the UN to clean up. Im not sure if you could really call this a victory for either side, since both sustained substantial losses (realitive to the size of their military size) and no ground was either won or lost. However their mission was accomplished so its difficult to asses since the Somlians achieved their goals of shooting down a helicopter and denting the American military machine. So Clinton pulls the troops to aviod a public outcry and to save his ass. If that kind of thing happened again if he left them in what would people have said? Im sure the military wouldnt be happy either. Its a catch 22 type thing. He was damed if he left them and damed if he didnt.

[Dagodevas]

At 1/4/04 04:46 AM, waxxpotato wrote: But what has Bush done? etc...

I think it's amusing how Clinton supporters will overlook Clinton's military mishaps by superimposing his domestic achievements while they prod Bush for his war in Iraq AND completely ignore the fact that our current Interest rates haven't been this good in almost 50 years (plus other positive outlooks for the economic future).

It's called, picking-and-choosing who you like. Bipartisan politics are making fools out of all of you.

[TheMason]

However you must also see his point. 21 or so top notch soliders kille din one incident. A figure unheard of since probally Vietnam (maybe IM wrong). Now if he continued to persue this campaign more lives would undoubtedly been lost. This misson had little impact on national security so rather isking lives of well trained soliders which probally didnt come cheap (the training) on what the US deemed a non-esential mission, they just left the UN to clean up.

Just a few points, Somalia was the first major firefight the US had been involved in on the ground (Including Desert Storm) since Vietnam. The casualty rate (roughly 20%) was probably lower than any other firefight we have been involved in. The military was given a mission (which we carried out) and we would have rather seen it through than just left in disgrace.

Secondly, Clinton did not support the General in charge when he asked for some different types of support aircraft. Things were denied to our troops not on military expediency, but out of political concerns. Clinton, not Bush Sr. sent in Task Force Ranger to capture Adid. As such he should have been willing to give them what they needed or not sent them in at all.

But he did send them in and as President he could have come before the American people and swayed public opinion, especially with his Vietnam record. Instead he cut and ran.

Lastly, as for National Security: there has been huge consequences. Somalia embolded bin-Laden. He has pointed to Somalia on several occassions as proof that America is weak and that he doubts we have the intestinal fortitude to conduct a protracted war against his Jihad and/or do what it takes to win. Furthermore, we have confiscated from al-Qaida troops in Afghanistan military equipment belonging to Task Force Ranger.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/4/04 11:41 PM, TheMason wrote: What is important is that Clinton did not pay adequate attention to anything that related to National Defense or foreign policy especially during the early stages of his Presidency.

hmm, true. Clinton did not lead the military adequetely IMHO, instead wholly handing it over to high-ranking generals

Furthermore, it was not a priority in the polls something Clinton built his administration around.

every president has sung, danced and pranced for the polls (in recent memory). This was nothing new.

Clinton had several opportunities to stop bin-Laden as early as 1993 but did nothing. Until 1993 bin-Laden was unknown to US intelligence agencies.

strange, because they were funding him. You mean they didn't know who they were supplying with money and ammunition during the eighties (seventies even(?))?

As for the order to execute bin-Laden that came later (1998) and with so many restrictions on how, when and where he could be killed that it made carrying out this order largely unfeasible. In effect it was only more smoke and mirrors from Clinton that really did not do anything.

probably, since assasinations are generally frowned upon.....

Lastly about the military funding. The military budget will always increase no matter who is in power, why? This is called inflation. However, under Clinton his increases in the budget were not enough to keep the spear sharp.

Actually, Clinton did cut military spending the first several years he was in office. But between '92 to '00, the budget overall went up, something like 4billion. The cold war was over and he started to flatline spending. I applaud him for this.

Commanders are faced with the issue of "doing more with less" (a concept that came about as result of Clinton's policies) and lacked the resources to fight a FULL-scale war on two fronts (fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count, what counts would be two significant theaters such as we fought in WWII). CONT.

Why do you want us fighting on two fronts? Two fronts are horrible stuff, contributing to Germany's fall in both aforementioned world wars.

Furthermore I don't see the need for such a military, ever single other country in the world is able to "keep their spears sharp"

Maybe we don't need so many spears?

[TheMason]

hmm, true. Clinton did not lead the military adequetely IMHO, instead wholly handing it over to high-ranking generals

He let the generals handle the mundane day-to-day stuff, but he DID intervene on some major points AGAINST his generals (if he did as you said we would have had AC-130s and AH-64s in Somalia).

every president has sung, danced and pranced for the polls (in recent memory). This was nothing new.

True, but Clinton did not make a move without consulting a focus group. He had no sense of leadership, just manipulation by following. Something remarkable just to him.

:: strange, because they were funding him(bin-Laden). You mean they didn't know who they were supplying with money and ammunition during the eighties (seventies even(?))?

Yes I mean exactly that. We gave money to Pakistan to train the Mujahideen. They in turn used the money to build camps like we specified, however they bred a group of Mujahideen to fight a Jihad against India. Most of these were Anti-American/West as well as Anti-Soviet, so the Pakistanis hid them from American observers to keep the money coming in. In fact bin-Laden was just a logistics specialist working for someone else during the eighties.

Lastly about the military funding. The military budget will always increase no matter who is in power, why? This is called inflation. However, under Clinton his increases in the budget were not enough to keep the spear sharp.

Why do you want us fighting on two fronts? Two fronts are horrible stuff, contributing to Germany's fall in both aforementioned world wars.

Furthermore I don't see the need for such a military, ever single other country in the world is able to "keep their spears sharp"
Maybe we don't need so many spears?

The Two Fronts strategy is based upon sound military doctrine. The idea is to be able to fight a war and still be able to defend the homefront so of course we want two fronts. Secondly, we did just fine on two fronts during WWII, doing the vast majority of the fighting in the Pacific and a large part of the fighting in Europe.

As for needing so many spears, the US has a larger commitment to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). Peace keeping, training, alliances, etc. we do more than our fair share. No other nation really has the global reach to put troops in remote places on the globe. In a sense the world looks to us to provide troops/resoruces for hot spots. Why buy spears when you can use someone elses?

[RedSkunk]

At 1/9/04 12:58 AM, TheMason wrote: True, but Clinton did not make a move without consulting a focus group. He had no sense of leadership, just manipulation by following. Something remarkable just to him.

meh, the amount that clinton relied on focus groups as compared to past and present presidents is hard to quantify, along with his 'sense of leadership'..

Yes I mean exactly that.

ok, making sure.

The Two Fronts strategy is based upon sound military doctrine. The idea is to be able to fight a war and still be able to defend the homefront so of course we want two fronts.
As for needing so many spears, the US has a larger commitment to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). Peace keeping, training, alliances, etc. we do more than our fair share.

Point taken, I agree to an extent. Now it's a question of how much of this enlarged budget is going to MOOTW operations, how much to strictly military operations that concern war, other things such as lateral nuclear proliferation, etc. etc. etc.

-

Bill Clinton's Legacy - I think, as I've stated before, he'll be known for the 'economic boom' of the 90's, whether he created it or not, and I also think he'll be looked back upon as more 'liberal' than he really was, since he was surrounded by more conservative republicans (that swing of the pendulum to liberalism in the US was shortlived indeed, one prez, two terms)..................