|
 |
January 19, 2004 PILGRIMAGE TO PLAINS....Howard Dean spent yesterday in Plains with Jimmy Carter:
This isn't that big a deal, but I wonder why Dean tried to imply that he'd been invited? And I wonder why he went? Offhand, it doesn't seem as if being seen in the presence of Jimmy Carter would necessarily be that big a boost in the Iowa caucuses. At any rate, Carter didn't offer an endorsement and of course neither has Bill Clinton. On the other hand, George McGovern (for Clark) and Al Gore (for Dean) have. That leaves Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis left among losing Democratic candidates whose endorsement is still up for grabs. My guess is that Dukakis is radioactive, but I imagine Mondale's endorsement would be worth something. In other former president news, James Joyner reports that no less a hawk than Ralph Peters was blown away by Bill Clinton's latest Sister Souljah moment in front of the Emir of Qatar:
Sounds like a good speech. But then, aside from that unfortunate zipper problem, he was a pretty good president. UPDATE: Commenter Matt Stevens reminds me that Dukakis has endorsed John Kerry, although not with what you'd exactly call a blaze of publicity. So I guess Mondale is the only fence-sitter left. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 19, 2004 11:13 AM | TrackBackComments
Kevin, i realize why you made the reference to the "unfortunate zipper problem," but i'm sure you understand that, in fact, the "unfortunate zipper problem" should never have been an issue in the first place, and that we can, in fact, say that Clinton simply was a pretty good president. The next time, for instance, that Bush shows as much willingness to confront an element of his base as Clinton did to his over NAFTA will be the first time.... Posted by: howard at January 19, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINKI'm not sure how to take this article, coming as it does from Peters, the guy who called us "teacup Trotskyites" not long ago. He's still far wrong. Among the things he said were that if a President were popular abroad he'd be failing the American people. Apparently he thinks our interests and the rest of the world's are so diametrically opposed that a President must be angering the rest of the world to do a good job. Boggles the mind. One thing he doesn't say is that Bush couldn't have given that speech, even read from a teleprompter, and he sure as hell couldn't write such a speech. How much you want to bet Bill wrote that one himself? Just head and shoulders above Bush in all areas except marital fidelity. Posted by: Norman at January 19, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINKHead and shoulders above Bush in intellect, certainly, but not in courage. Neither Bill nor Hillary have gone into Angry Left mode over the war in Iraq and they're too smart to engage in the same type of toxic rhetoric as Howard Dean or some of the other Democrats. I think they know full well, from their time in the White House, that Saddam was a bad actor who simply had to go and the Angry Left posture will be a losing strategy over the long run - especially if Hillary runs in 2008. Their political instincts have always been sharper than virtually anyone else in the Democratic Party. Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 19, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINKAn interesting piece, however, I would like to compare it to the actual speech. I can't believe this sentiment came from Clinton: Pulling no punches, he made it clear that Yasser Arafat was responsible for the failure to secure a Palestinian state. He refused to trash Israel. I *can* believe he wouldn't trash Israel but I *cannot* believe he would exonerate the Israeli government while laying the blame completely on Arafat. Either our journalist friend has done quite a bit of selective editing (What! Impossible!) or Clinton isn't the man I thought he was. Posted by: chris at January 19, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINKHow would Mondale's endorsement mean much when he couldn't even win a senate seat in his home state two years ago>? Posted by: mark at January 19, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINKFWIW: Mondale's son, Ted, is campaigning for Howard Dean in Iowa. Saw him in Mason City yesterday. Posted by: aretino at January 19, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKChris, my guess when i read Peters was that "refuse to trash Israel" doesn't mean that he didn't criticize Israel at all. Norman, i had the same thought (there is no chance that bush could have given a speech like this) when reading peters, and i think it's there implicitly in his discussion of Clinton as the only American who could have given this kind of speech. (For Peters, that's as close as he's going to come.) fw, i don't remember what poster here at CalPundit a couple of weeks ago rightly said that bush was probably better than reagan on terrorism, clinton was better than bush, and now bush II is better than clinton. but if it were universally agreed that terrorism was an issue upon which clinton was failing, we'd have seen the congressional GOP screaming about it, since they screamed about everything else. We'd have seen Bush campaign on it, instead of a rogue state missile defense. We'd have seen the GOP platform make a big deal out of it, instead of the many other issues they chose to emphasize. In short, that's like saying that every president between lincoln and lbj could have dealt with de jure segregation in america, and didn't. While it's true, it's a decontexualized criticism. PS. That said, i give Clinton a B/B- grade myself, although probably for different reasons than you do.... Posted by: howard at January 19, 2004 11:42 AM | PERMALINK he always chose to be liked rather than to be bold. Well said. I didn't respect Clinton, though I voted for him once. He's been exceptionally fortunate in his enemies, who make him look a lot larger than he really was. As far as the "angry Democrat" rap goes, anyone who isn't angry that radical right-wingers control all branches of government is someone who would have been a Tory in 1776 - saying nasty things about Sam Adams and George Washington and Jefferson and all those angry upstarts. Posted by: nyc at January 19, 2004 11:42 AM | PERMALINKHoward, can we really say Clinton was simply a pretty good President when by a monumentally stupid act lacking fundamental self discipline he blows up his own Presidency? Look, Clinton got my vote twice and, if possible, would get it a third time. But the flytrap angle was the achilles heel in an otherwise great leader that seriously damaged not only his own legacy but cost the Dems the 2000 election, simple as that. All other circumstances being equal, the only way a shallow twit like Bush wins is because Clinton can't keep his pants up. And that makes me want to puke. Classic Greek tragedy. Like Elrond said, with contempt: "Men are weak." Posted by: Binky at January 19, 2004 11:44 AM | PERMALINKDukakis is supporting John Kerry, his former Lt. Governor. Don't think we'll see a big endorsement ceremony though. Posted by: GW Plunkitt at January 19, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKBinky, It's not that men are weak so much as Republicans are sooooo much better than Democrats at harnessing the media to do their dirty work. There are so many more horrible, horrible things that Dubya has done (and Reagan) than a simple blowjob between consensual adults. For Christ's sake! Bush is screwing all of us and I, for one, haven't consented to any of it. Posted by: chris at January 19, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKDean lied... ah, who cares. Clinton/zipper... snore. All the fun has gone out of attacking Democrats recently. It's so, well, boring. "Pretty good" isn't how I'd describe Clinton's presidency. "A waste of a damn fine opportunity" is how I'd describe it. We had an 8-year period between great struggles against communism and Islamofascism, with a good economy for the entire time, and Clinton did virtually nothing. I mean, really, what was his biggest accomplishment? And don't give me the economy - Presidents have much less to do with it than is commonly believed. So, yeah, it looks like a damn fine speech you linked to there, Kevin. It reminds us all how big of a waste of talent he was. Posted by: Al at January 19, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINKDukakis has endorsed Kerry. (Unsurprisingly Kerry hasn't publicized it.) Posted by: Matt Stevens at January 19, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKClinton is exceptional in creating and good at giving grandiose speeches. Al: You'd better pray that your kids are just as stupid as you are because when they have to start paying your hero's debts, if they have any brains at all, they're going to kick the walker right from under you. Posted by: Not-a-Drone at January 19, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKfw I am not sure how Clinton will be viewed by historians. This will probably depend on the nationality or politics of the historian. I take issue with your courage argument. If President Bush had run on a platform of transforming the Middle East or had articulated a radically new foreign policy vis-a-vis the Middle East, I would be convinced by your argument. However, President Bush reacted to the events of 9/11 by articulating his new policy. This new doctrine was largely unchallenged by a traumatized body politic. President Clinton never had the political authority to wage war in quite the same way. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKThe speech as reported (I haven't read it) shows what might have been. Clinton never had enough self-control to achieve his potential. He caused most, if not all, of his own problems. It wasn't necessary. He could have been a good, maybe a great president. Part of the problem wasn't his fault. All that "end of history" talk lulled him, and a lot of others, into believing it. Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKChris: Clinton was pretty straightforward about blaming Arafat when the Camp David talks broke down in 2000. I don't think this is really anything new. Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 19, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Al writes: "Pretty good" isn't how I'd describe Clinton's presidency. "A waste of a damn fine opportunity" is how I'd describe it. Indeed. Thank goodness Bush was elected to end our long national nightmare of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at January 19, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKI don't agree that Bush shows courage that Clinton lacked. Bush has never stood up to his base on any issue. Clinton, in contrast, did so on NAFTA and on welfare reform. Clinton's budget of 1994 was a very courageous act---it very likely cost the Democrats control of Congress, but it put the US on a sound fiscal track. We've since been derailed by the truly spineless group of Republicans that are in power now. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at January 19, 2004 12:05 PM | PERMALINKIF, I repeat, IF Dean deliberately mischaracterized the Carter worship invitation, that's big news to me. I'll be looking for some context for Dean's remarks. Posted by: Conrack at January 19, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKThe best president of the first Gilded Age was the gifted but flawed Grover Cleveland. The era deserved no better. The best president of the second Gilded Age was the gifted but flawed Bill Clinton. The era deserved no better. Posted by: son volt at January 19, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKThe Dems offered a national health care program in the Clinton Administration. The Repubs offered to completely abolish the Commerce Department. Now who exactly which was a wasted opportunity here? Especially when the public still wants a national health care program, and now Republicans are talking about abolishing the Department of Human Resources (by transferring some of the programs to the Commerce Department). ( link ) Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 19, 2004 12:08 PM | PERMALINKDamn, no transcript at the brookings site yet. I just love the selective, and reductive, standards conservatives have for holding any office or deserving any compliment. Two data points: 1. listening to a diatribe on runaway budgets/deficits between host and caller on the Michael Thomas(?) radio show yesterday AM--venom and outrage spewing over the current state of things. The caller ends by saying, "I loooove George Bush dearly, he's a great president. But this is ridiculous." 2. From Peters' piece: a president who's popular abroad is probably failing America. [...] employing Bill Clinton on future "missions of persuasion" also might help reduce the enmity between our political parties in the foreign-policy sphere. The first point seems to typify the ironic, willful separation between successful execution, or even presence, of policy and ideas and an elected leader and party. It demonstrates to me also that this in not a fight over facts but dueling mythologies. And alas, democrats, whitepapers cannot vanquish the Chimera. The second point, Peters', seems to put a chinese wall between foreign and domestic performance and responsibility--stupid, impractical, convenient--while ignoring the obvious: America's challenge is not party disagreement that needs to be reconciled over tea and sandwiches, it is that America's solo, active, newly-intrusive intentions are viewed overseas as hostile to nations of many lattitudes, christian, muslim and otherwise. fouro Posted by: fouro at January 19, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINKAl What is Islamofascism? I have some idea of what you are talking about, but what do you mean precisely? Also, what did you want done during the Clinton Administration? I am not asking this in some attempt to discredit or attack you. I am just curious as to what type of policy he should have enacted. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 12:15 PM | PERMALINKfw: "Clinton had many chances to attack terrorism and ruffle some feathers in so doing, but he always chose to be liked rather than to be bold." This is simply up-is-downism. Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than Bush did prior to September 11. And he took heat for what he did about it - remember all those "wag the dog" accusations? Anyone who wants more detail should read Al Franken's latest book, especially the chapter entitled "Operation Ignore." Posted by: Emma Anne at January 19, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINKRegarding fence-sitters, I was about to say that I was witholding my support of any candidate until I learned who George McGovern is endorsing, but it appears that as of yesterday he is officially endorsing Gen. Clark.... Posted by: Skeptic at January 19, 2004 12:22 PM | PERMALINKAfter posting just now, I had a flashback. Peter's piece on the splitting of accountability, domestic and foreign, current and past presidents brings to mind a blast from his dad's past that carries so much layered meaning out there that it deserves to come back: Ann Richards: Where was George? Powerful TV spots and narrative, because the intuitive relationship inferences and dots aren't hard for people to connect. fouro Posted by: fouro at January 19, 2004 12:24 PM | PERMALINK"What is Islamofascism? I have some idea of what you are talking about, but what do you mean precisely?" I don't know about Al but, to me, it means an ideology that turns control of the society over to a small group of unelected oligarchs whose authority is based on an inward-looking philosophy and a racial or religious elite. Hitler and Mussolini did it. The apartheid government of South Africa did it. The Iranian mullahs are doing it. The Baath Party tried but they were not as focused as the mullahs. Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 12:29 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Since all candidates now need to answer how they see Jesus in their lives. Dean probably went to the church service to shore up his "religious persona". Apparently America's constitutional separation of church and state does not mean squat anymore. Posted by: ch2 at January 19, 2004 12:32 PM | PERMALINKI don't know about Al but, to me, it means an ideology that turns control of the society over to a small group of unelected oligarchs whose authority is based on an inward-looking philosophy and a racial or religious elite. Sound familiar? Posted by: ABB at January 19, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKKevin, The story I read said that Dean called Carter, the campaign was offered two dates, one in January and one in March, and went with the January invitation. The March date would be too late to be of any use for the February southern primaries. Explanation from Ryan Lizza at TNR . While I can understand President Carter putting a little distance
between him and any endorsement, I would call offering two dates an
invitation. Dean decided not to decline the early date, despite concern
over a close caucus. Mike K and Al, using a term like "islamofascism" when you mean to talk about the problems of islamic fundamentalist terrorism is simply lazy. Fascism is an ideology of modernity: it has nothing to do with people who hate modernity and think the whole notion of separation between church and state is a stupid modern notion that is ruining the world. Generally speaking, whenever someone starts talking about "islamofascism," i start discounting their arguments as received cliches. Binky, Clinton was neither the first president to fool around while in office nor will he be the last, but he was the only president to fool around while there was a powerful, organized movement to get him. We may agree that this was foolish behavior on Clinton's part (although i've always thought that here's a guy who grew up idolizing JFK, probably the leading white house womanizer, so what did we expect?), but i really don't see how it actually affects how he conducted his presidency. (Historians do not judge andrew johnson, for instance, for his impeachment, which they correctly believe was politically rather than high crimes and misdemeanors motivated.) Al, failing to understand just how critical presidential leadership on fiscal integrity was means that not only do you suffer from cliches on islamofascism, you suffer from cliches on the economy as well. What a president does is to influence the field conditions on which the game of business is played. Clinton created superior field conditions when he inherited a muddy, monsoon-wracked ground. Again, for all of those raising the Clinton could have done more about terrorism comment, yes he could have, and every president between Lincoln and Johnson could have ended de jure segregration, too (as well as fulfilled 40 acres and a mule). Or maybe they couldn't have, if public support wasn't there, and we know from the record that hardly anyone was taking the problem of al qaeda and related terrorism seriously enough (including bush and the members of his inner circle). Posted by: howard at January 19, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINKABB,ch2, MikeK ch2 I believe that the phenomenon you are describing owes more to America's growing fascination with fundamentalist Christianity. It is unthinkable to me that someone could be elected to the Presidency while embracing anything other that a Christian religion. I am not sure that this sort of thing is prohibited by law though. I agree that it is a disturbing trend. ABB If you are suggesting that the US has been captured by some religious oligarchy, I think I disagree. There is a lot more money to be made appealing to people's vices rather than their virtues. While I think that President's Bush's speeches point to the fact that he thinks he is appointed by God to do God's work, I find it unbelievable that most Americans actually think that this is true. I could be wrong, but I hope not. Mike K Is this fascism you are talking anout? I don't recall any Islamic overtones in the rhetoric of Hitler or Mussolini. Islamofascism is an interesting word, in that it combines a new fear, Islam, with an older more established evil, fascism. For people who use it, it seems to categorize groups like Al Quaeda, nations like Iran and Iraq under the Baathists, and the Taliban. To me, such a generalized term has no meaning at all. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKI'm always puzzeled when I hear the claim that Bush is so much better on terrorism than Clinton. What did Bush do prior to 9/11 other than to disengage from the middle east? Was there some great anti-terrorism initiative that I missed? Posted by: Digital Amish at January 19, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKhoward, you neglect to mention that Andrew Johnson is judged by most to be a lousy President because, among other reasons, he was inept in dealing with his enemies. To give him a break, however, he inherited the office in just about the worst circumstances imaginable, exceeded only by those experienced by Lincoln himself, and possibly Washington. Clinton occupied the office in 1993, in the most favorable circumstances since that which Harding enjoyed, or perhaps even Taft. He proceeded to lose his party's Congressional advantage, to a large degree due to the absolutely inept (regardless of what one thinks of the issue) pursuit of national health care. He then engaged in the purest ill-disciplined idiocy; using the office help for sex while in the midst of a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Now, whatever the merits of the lawsuit, such behavior, which really destroyed any chance of his achieving his political goals, is incredibly bone-stupid, and what is an idiot, if not one who engages in bone-stupid idiocy? By definition, a pretty good President is effective in dealing with his enemies, and a President who is as idiotic as Clinton is dealing with enemies cannot be a good President. Posted by: Will Allen at January 19, 2004 01:34 PM | PERMALINKThere is no doubt in my mind that Clinton is smart enough to know that he screwed up badly. Indeed. Thank goodness Bush was elected to end our long national nightmare of peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses. This is just silly unless you think that the economic bubble of the
90's would not have burst or 9/11 never would have happened under a
Democrat. If Al Gore were president his administration would have had
to deal with recession, terrorism, and war just as Bush has. Digital- That is a good point. I personally think that Clinton did a fairly good job on terrorism. Conservatives are always blasting him for failing to respond firmly to the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, etc., but this criticism is unfair. The fact is that we were all living in a dream world from 1992-2000. To put it bluntly, no one cared when the sailors on the USS Cole died. The nation certainly wasn't willing to go to war over something like that. We all just wanted to get back to watching Must See TV. Heck, I want to get back to watching it. No one likes to be at war and we all hope that the comfortable days of the 1990's will return. Under the circumstances, Clinton did the best he could. He bombed Iraq's WMD plants. He went after Al Quaeda. He prepared for a chem/bio weapons attack. I don't see what he could have done better. But I don't think that Clinton he would have responded as well as Bush has had Clinton been president on 9/11. Bush is a bold visionary. He has charted an entirely new course and has taken some enormous risks in his foreign policy. I very much doubt that Clinton would have gone to war in Afghanistan, for example. Oh, he would have hit the terror training camps with air strike and ground troops -- any President would have -- but toppling the government in Kabul is a whole different, and much riskier, given the Russian experience, story. Clinton probably would have sent the Special Forces into Afghanistan to attack the Al Quaeda bases. He would have made some bold-sounding statement like "Territorial integrity? Sanctity of airspace? Screw that. We're going to get those guys, the Afghani border be damned. Any Taliban forces who interfere with us will be destroyed." Nor do I see Clinton trying to democratize the middle east. He probably would have thought that the whole entrerprise was too risky and would therefore have declined to make the attempt. I can see him publicizing all kinds of joint US-Some Muslim Dictatorship raids on terror cells, and creating something like a deck of cards which contains terrorists, rather than Iraqi regime members. The evening news would be filled with photo ops -- some Delta Force officer, his face blacked out to obscure his identity, discussing the successful capture/assassination of some notorious terrorist with Peter Jennings in an exclusive interview. We'd enter into lots of treaties and Clinton would make firm-sounding statements on arms control. Clinton wouldn't be trying to topple governments. He wouldn't be trying to democratize the middle east. In all likelihood, he'd just step up the law enforcement and intellgence-gathering aspects of the anti-terrorism campaign without trying to tackle the problem at its source. That's why I think Bush is doing a better job than Clinton would have had Clinton been President on 9/11. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 19, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINKBinky Clinton did not cause Gore to lose, Gore caused Gore to lose. He did not distance himself from Clinton. He could have said, "He's great, I love him, but..." He got trapped making dumb statements. i.e. Inventing the Internet Then claiming to visit some disaster, I think it was in Texas, when he hadn't actually visted. He looked as stiff as a wooden Indian. Why? He was a professional politican. He allowed himself to be billed as the world's smartest man. When he didn't just demolish Bush in the debates, he made Bush look good and himself look weak. Then he had gotten nailed over using the phone and made his, "No controlling legal authority," statement. Dumb. Instead of ignoring the problem, or apologzing, he made a statenment just covered in arrogance and doublespeak. And then we had all the press coverage of him trying to turn himself into a Alpha male. That statement alone probably cost him Tennessee, his home state and Arkansas. ;-) All, in all, people started laughing and joking about him. A politican can carry a lot of negatives and win. But not laughter. Nobody wants a clown for President. Posted by: Poker Player (aka Jim) at January 19, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKMy dictionary defines fascism as "Totalitarianism marked by right wing dictatorship and bellicose nationalism." Our true enemy is Al Queda, who run no dictatorship nor are identified with any nation. It may be kind of catchy to call them Islamofascists, but its not very accurate. I suggest we leave Islam out of this and call them "Al Queda". Posted by: Another Bruce at January 19, 2004 02:16 PM | PERMALINKNobody wants a clown for President. "Is our children learning" etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Posted by: me oh my at January 19, 2004 02:26 PM | PERMALINKClinton was an ass, but I often like his speeches. Kevin, if you get a link to the transcript, please share. Correction: Clinton was *and still is* an ass
Randal Robinson writes: This is just silly unless you think that the economic bubble of the 90's would not have burst or 9/11 never would have happened under a Democrat. What wouldn't have happened under a Democratic President: (1) The Iraq War. (2) The bankrupting of the country (deficits as far as the eye can see). The recession and 9/11 would probably have happened no matter who was in office. (I only say "probably", because Bush was much more cavalier about terrorism before 9/11 than Clinton was. It is possible that more vigilance would have prevented 9/11.) Posted by: Daryl McCullough at January 19, 2004 02:38 PM | PERMALINKIt's truly baffling that folks think Bush is tougher on terrorism, when Clinton set up the invasion of Aghanistan in December 2000, only to have Bush table it until it was too late. Posted by: Boronx at January 19, 2004 03:00 PM | PERMALINKPoker Player, I'll grant you that Gore, not Clinton, lost to Bush. But your examples of why Gore lost are simply no good. The issues about "inventing" the internet and the Texas disaster visit, like the supposed lie about "Love Story" were all contrivances by the media, Republicans or both to paint a picture of a candidate with a credibility problem. All bogus. Compare Bush's supposed credibility with Gore's three years later. Yea, I think we all agree who has turned out to be the real liar. Not to mention a clown. How in the world anyone can think Gore would have been a clown compared to Bush is beyond me. And howard, as for the "everyone's fooled around" excuse, sure it's happened before. But that doesn't mean it goes down with the public any easier. The point is that Clinton getting fellated caused many people who would otherwise support him to walk away in disgust. He damn well should have known that. The fact that he knew the VRWC would jump on him for anything they could find makes his actions more stupid, not less. It certainly would have made Al Gore the winner if Clinton had allowed Hil to be the only fellator in the White House. Posted by: Binky at January 19, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINK"Bush, on the other hand, was dealt a bad hand..." My God, you GOPers have your collective heads so far up your bums you could lick your tonsils. Huge surplus, balanced budget, minor economic downturn, nothing major, that's what he inherited. It's his POLICIES that have turned a slowdown into a route. Let's remind those who have drank the right-wing Kool-Aid of some uncomfortable FACTS. Here is the hand Bush inherited, and his actions which have brought us to our current nadir. Economic and Govermental situations were unparalleld as far as stability is concerned. Growing business productivity due to Governmental actions concerning Internet transformation (the Internet was a Government network where commercial activity was originally banned. Al Gore, remember him?, worked tirelessly in Congress to change that situation.) What does Bush do once 'elected'? Enact debilitating tax cuts using deceptive tactics. Ignores known threats (Osama), ignores the Hart-Rudman report on Terrorism and instead began a quixoitic attempt to build Reagan's fantasy Star Wars shield. Hires Harvey Pitt to the SEC, who then lets the corporate crooks have a free reign in raping their investors. Takes nice, month long vacations while Osama launches his team. After said attack, bombed Afghanistan then promptly forgot all his promises concerning that benighted nations needs to pursue his vendetta against Saddam. Lied to get the nation to follow him to war against his family's nemesis. Destroys the nation's long-in-place alliances with its economic partners to pursue said vendetta. The list goes on and on and on and on..... Basically, the guy has turned the country into a mess (of course, that's not a surprise when you look at his track record in business). You can pontificate all you like, but the fact is this presidency is an unmitigated disaster. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology. Posted by: The Watcher at January 19, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKPoker Player, Your description of the reasons that Gore lost is full of misinformation. One example: Gore never said he invented the internet. What he really said was that he took the lead in Congress in developing the internet. That is exactly true. Let me quote Newt Gingrich (not exactly a Democratic partisan): In all fairness, it?s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is?and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a ?futures group??the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ?80s began to actually happen. The exaggeration and dishonesty was on the part of the people who reported Gore's statements, not on Gore's part. The same is true of most of the examples of Gore's "lies and exaggerations". You were lied to about Gore, and you believed those lies. It's not
clear whose fault that is---the liars, the people who believed the lies,
or the person the lies were about. Maybe a combination of all three. Joe Schmoe You perceptions about pre-9/11 America are correct in my view. There was no groundswell for war after the terroist attacks abroad. The events of 9/11 were so jarring that action was called for. There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush was correct to proceed with the invasion of Afghanistan. I do take issue with your assessment of Clinton's probable reaction had he been President when the attacks took place. He was not shy about committing American forces abroad for far weaker reasons than 9/11. This is just speculation of course. In my mind, the political price at home if a sitting President did not react with an almost immediate military response would just be too high. Also, Bush's rhetoric does seem visionary at times. I tend to agree with him when he states that the US has for too long supported undemocratic regimes in the Middle East, with disastrous consequences. I am going to assume than when you write democratize, you mean that we should convert these regimes into something close to what we have here in the US. The problem as I see it is not the potential riskiness of such a policy, but that it is probably impossible to implement such a policy, at least in the short term. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKWill, sorry to be so much later here, but for the record, Andrew Johnson was not dealt such a dire hand - i don't know why you think he was. And frankly, the reason to criticize him is because the Republicans were right politically: he was busy selling out equal rights. But we digress. As for Clinton, the comments up above have already said what I could say about the circumstances of 1993: they were a mixed bag, not a fantastic launching point. The rest of the Clinton story is just going to take us into endless repetition, so i think i'll pass. Joe Schmoe, you don't still believe that building a democracy in the middle east is the point of bush iraq policy, do you? Bremer articulated two very clear goals for US policy way back when he first came on the scene: creating a market economy and writing a constitution. We have given up on doing either. General Sanchez is planning on extra military actions when, during the troop rotation, we have 200K soldiers on the ground, but basically, we are cutting our troop committment at a time when the security situation is deteriorating. The American public (see the latest polls) after the Bush bounce on Saddam, is noticing that capturing saddam - just as howard dean said to much grumbling and derision - hasn't made us any safer, and its patience for nation-building is being sorely tried. Bush risks no political capital in that enterprise and i'll be amazed if he gives it more than lip service during the SOTU tomorrow. In short, Bush underestimated the risks and overestimated the gains in invading Iraq, and the price is yet to be fully toted up. Posted by: howard at January 19, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKWhen I'm sad, I like to imagine a world where Gore had said something in a speech to the effect of "I learned a lot from Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a good president. When I'm president, whenever I have a tough decision to make, I'll ask myself 'what would Bill Clinton have done?' If the decision is about the economy or about our foreign policy, I'll probably do what Bill would have done. And if it's about sex, I'll probably do the opposite." Posted by: Skinny at January 19, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKRoland- Yes, that is exactly what I mean by democratization. I agree that Clinton would have taken military action post 9/11. He would have wanted to take it, for one thing, and for another, not taking it would have gotten him impeached. The American people demanded military action. Clinton's post 9/11 polcies would have *looked* tough. But I don't think they would have been *as* tough, or as visionary, as the policies enacted by Bush. Bush is taking enormous risks. I just don't see Clinton having that kind of strategic courage. Clinton would have dropped a million bombs and captured a million terrorists. Heck, the guy is so smooth that he probably would have made Bush's "bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" speeches look meek and wish-washy. But Clinton would not taken *real* risks, like toppling the government of Afghanistan or democratizing the Middle East. Therefore, he would not have addressed the root causes of terrorism. Bush is tackling the problem at the source. This is leadership. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at January 19, 2004 03:50 PM | PERMALINKJoe said: "democratizing the Middle East." It's going to be a puppet government, okay, Joe? Don't be naive. In fact, if it wasn't a puppet government, I'd personally be a bit upset...spending all this money and not even keeping control. Posted by: me oh my at January 19, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINKGee, I dunno, howard, maybe it has something to do with a half million young men dead, many of whom who would have been among the more productive people in 1865, if not for the war. Perhaps something to do with the countless young who had their productivity greatly impaired by being permenantly maimed in the war. Perhaps something to do with the difficult task of attempting to re-order Southern society in the wake of abolition, and massive physical destruction. Now Johnson, to his everlasting discredit, really didn't try, but it is simply surreal to say that becoming President in 1865 was not a hideous proposition. In comparison, 1993 was a year in which the economy was expanding, after the most mild recession in the post-war period, there was low inflation, and it was possible to cut defense expenditures massively. If there was a better year after 1925, or even 1909, in which to become President, well, that would be an interesting argument. Posted by: Will Allen at January 19, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKI know Clinton will be remembered fondly because almost none of the discussion here is about Carter. As far as Reagnite Bush-2, he, like all other Reaganites, will be remembered for massive spending and gargantuan public debt. Posted by: Matt Young at January 19, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINK"Fascism is an ideology of modernity: it has nothing to do with people who hate modernity and think the whole notion of separation between church and state is a stupid modern notion that is ruining the world." I think you have a point but the term is shorthand for a long description. The tradition of fascism was the corporate state. It began as socialism but the workers were not in charge (even in the phony style of communism). The Baath Party was planned as an Arab version of fascism. The officers who started the movement in the 30s were emulating Hitler. The Iranian version substituted mullahs for army officers but it was socialist, nationalist and based on ideology. In the Baath example, the ideology is pan-Arabism. The Iranians are not Arabs and the mullahs took charge under the banner of Shia Islam. The OBL branch has a similar structure but the mullahs and the radical leaders use Sunni-based Wahabbism as the ideology. They want to restore the Caliphate, shorthand for the Arab Empire that existed last in 1228. It's no accident that Bush is compared to the Mongols. They sacked Baghdad that year, killed all the Abbasids and ended the Arab Empire. The Turks took over a few years later. Each movement has in common the ideology, the small circle of leaders, an oligarchy, and an impractical and delusional concept of history. Call it what you like. Mussolini wanted to restore the Roman Empire. Hitler wanted to restore the Teutonic society that Wagner wrote operas about. Islamofascism is pretty close. Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 05:00 PM | PERMALINKWill, i appreciate your sense of surrealism, and i certainly appreciate that you appear to think i don't know anything about the civil war and therefore are educating me, but by the time Johnson became president, the awfulness of civil war was largely behind us, and binding up wounds - especially if you're willing to sell out the freed slaves - isn't quite the problem that fighting the war was. Now, if Johnson had taken over in 1862, maybe. After all, do you believe, Will, that Harry Truman came into office at a terrible time? I don't.... Better years to become president: 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964.... Anyhow, this is a sideshow: Andrew Johnson was impeached over politics. This isn't held against him by historians (although the political basis for the impeachment is held against him by at least some historians). Joe Schmoe: the idea that Bush is taking enormous risks is as misguided as the idea that Bush is really building a democracy in Iraq and transforming the middle east. I guess, though, at this late date, i shouldn't be surprised that you believe both of these things are true - a lot of your political identity as a born-again republican appears to be bound up in believing that these are true. Mike K: i continue to believe that "islamofascism" isn't merely shorthand, it's misleading shorthand, but i appreciate that you at least recognize the shorthandness of it.... Posted by: howard at January 19, 2004 07:16 PM | PERMALINKhoward, you apparently have the notion that, when several hundred thousand young men are killed , that the awful effect such a slaughter has on a nation's prospects are largely over when the war ends. We will have to differ. Apparently you are also of the notion that dealing with the aftermath of such a conflict is less problematic than what a normal Presidency faces. Frankly, most historians would find this laughable, and the use of the baseline of what problems were faced while the war was being waged is completely irrelevant, as is interjecting Johnson's inattention to binding wounds, since the question was not whether Johnson attempted to deal with issues, or whather 1862 wasworse than 1865, but rather whether those issues were difficult for any President to deal with, relative to the start of other Administrations. If this is the analysis of the problems facing the nation, and thus the President, in 1865, having a discussion regarding 1948 or 1945 (!) is pointless. Again, we will have to disagree. Posted by: Will Allen at January 19, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINK>>Nor do I see Clinton trying to democratize the middle east. He probably would have thought that the whole entrerprise was too risky and would therefore have declined to make the attempt. yeah, Joe, wonder why he would have thought that? His homegrown opponents also wouldn't let him. You make some other good points though. Posted by: Andrew | BYTE BACK at January 19, 2004 08:56 PM | PERMALINKI am unaware of any plan to democratize the Middle East. I am aware of a plan to get rid of Saddam and topple the Afghan government. The two are very different, and if Joe Schmoe wants to point me towards some facts, other than rhetoric, I might be pleasantly surprised. It is not visionary to invade a country with no connection to al-Queda, no capability of attacking the U.S., that is effectively isolated due to sanctions, and poses to threat to us other than the resulting attacks on U.S. soldiers. Our action in Iraq has nothing to do with attacking terrorism at its source. It was, and is, reckless, not visionary. If is flat-out the worst policy decision since at least Vietnam, the true consequences of which we have yet to learn, leaving aside the collateral effects such as the governmental policy of instilling fear and acquiescence on its constituents while rewarding its wealthy cronies. It is unbelievable what a mess we are in. Koll Posted by: Koll Jensen at January 20, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINKBUTT MACHINE BOYS CAPTAIN STABBIN SAMPLES CHRISTINE YOUNG CUM SWAPPING BITCHES HARDCORE FETISH MOVIES MELISSA LINCOLN NIGHT MOV VIDEOS TEENS FOR CASH THE ROLE PLAYING Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINK7640 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - 1166 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 04:46 PM | PERMALINK365 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 06:54 PM | PERMALINK4393 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINK8467 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 14, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINK2787 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 04:08 PM | PERMALINK2617 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 16, 2004 09:28 PM | PERMALINK3578 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 12:09 AM | PERMALINK6045 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 07:30 AM | PERMALINK5309 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
