<p>at least for some of us. Obviously, I expect the same crowd who accepted Clarke’s rumblings as gospel to dismiss Freeh’s book as nothing more than a CYA exercise. To each its own! </p>
<p>“Settling a score, Louis J. Freeh, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under President Bill Clinton and in the first six months of the Bush presidency, asserts in a new book that Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, was “basically a second-tier player” who had little access to power and was in no position to issue credible warnings in advance of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”</p>
<p>"On Bill Clinton:“Whatever moral compass the president was consulting, it was leading him in the wrong direction, and he lacked the discipline to pull back once he found himself stepping into trouble.”</p>
<p>“Describing Mr. Clinton’s actions that led to his impeachment, Mr. Freeh writes, “Just when I thought things couldn’t get any more outlandish, along came Monica Lewinsky and turned the White House into a theater of the absurd.””</p>
<p>This looks like a must-read. There’s so much more out there left to be learned, in understanding the real Clinton legacy. The fact that Sandy Berger–who should be in prison for stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives–is the Clintonista point man in rebutting Freeh really says it all.</p>
<p>yeah let us set the record straight - low unemployment, sound economy, balanced budget, high stock market, country at peace, no murdering of thousands of foreign nationals, no lies about WMDs, cleaner air, water, no pwer to evagelical ayatollahs in suits, no Katrina fiasco…</p>
<p>Simba, a few days ago, I answered to a similar rebuttal (NewMaddDad in that case.)</p>
<p>Good things happened during the eight years of Clinton, but the final tally is far from following the rosy picture you are painting. By the end of 2000, the stock market had suffered several corrections and given back most of the illusory profits of the go-go years. The attacks of 9-11 were a direct proof that our country was not more at peace in December 2000 than it was in 2005. In addition, there is LITTLE doubt that our ineffective foreign policies under Clinton played a large role in allowing the Al-Aqeda of the world to develop and gain stature. As far as murdering foreign nationals -or allowing their genocide-, you may want to revisit the history of the Balkans, a few countries in Africa, and the embargo on Iraq. Let’s not forget who was the administration who believed that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was a fair price to pay. It is not because WE did not spill any US blood that theirs is less worthy. </p>
<p>The United States and its government are not above making gross errors when seeking the well-being of the American citizens. When drawing comparisons betwen the Clinton years and the last five years, it’s not black on white, but rather a number of variations of grey. The United States does not function in a vacuum and the world of 1992-2000 is hardly comparable to the 2001-2005.</p>
<p>“no murdering of thousands of foreign nationals”</p>
<p>No, just the killing of half a million children, and as many adults, in a genocidal action as large as that which occurred in Rwanda.</p>
<p>As our Secretary of Apologetics said at the time about the half a million dead children, “I think this is a very hard choice. But the price–we think the price is worth it.”</p>
<p>You know, the level of venom you display in virtually all your recent posts is remarkable. There was a thread started today about a U.Maryland professor being awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics; rather than being happy that a fellow American had won this honor, the best you could do was to sneer at how he was 69 years old when hired, and his last book was published in 1984.</p>
<p>You mentioned in a recent post that you were recovering from a hospital stay for removing your appendix. All you got from fellow CCers was expressions of sympathy and hopes that you would recover soon. It looks like you’re incapable of displaying a similar grace in your answers.</p>
<p>I’ve stayed out of political discussions in this forum for the most part, since I’m not thrilled by the shrill vituperation emerging from both ends of the spectrum. It’s one thing to debate an issue politely, and agree to disagree if neither party can convince the other to budge. It’s quite another when we start with name-calling, and head south from that point.</p>
<p>Heh, this is a place for honest opinions. If you don’t agree fine, but I don’t think pointing out the illusion of the Clinton economy is that off base and has been well documented. Same for my opinion on the UM prof. I think it’s BS for UM to tout it, that’s all. Harvard and Berkeley should be very proud.</p>
<p>I’ll just point out, as a staunch Democrat who was appalled by Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, that real life consists of shades of gray. Unfortunately, our national politicians seem to have lost sight of this fact.</p>
<p>And, Barrons, LOTS of people got very rich during the dot.com boom and kept the money, too–it’s paying for my kids’ colleges now, and it paid for the house we bought, too. Like many things, the stock market is no place for the greedy. (If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. That was true of the dot.com boom, and IMHO, it’s probably true of this latest housing price boom too. I remember the Massachusetts housing market in 1986-7.)</p>
<p>DMD - the Ma. housing market is going through the same thing now… absolutely insane prices. It was recently rated as more expensive than NYC and San Fran. Yay.</p>
<p>Re: the politics and economy issue. To quote my (Ph.D. in econ) grandfather, anyone who thinks that the President really influences the economy should also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy - simultaneously. There are these things called economic cycles. Think of a sine wave. There is also a time lag between implemenation of a policy and economic effects - roughly 3-5 years, which is why it’s silly to credit a sitting president with the economy that happens when he is there. Employment, for one, is a lagging indicator of economic recovery - companies overburden their current employees before hiring new ones. </p>
<p>That all said, I do think that the Pres. does have some influence over the economy - but less so than Congress. Hello people, Congress is the one that makes legislation. The Pres. can suggest it, but it kind of has to pass through the House and the Senate before it’s going to be a bill. For those who still think that the Pres. is in charge, I would refer you to the film, “How a Bill Becomes a Law.” </p>
<p>Statistically, there is less gov’t spending when Congress and the Executive branch are under control of different parties. Just another thought.</p>
<p>Strange how Clinton was able to have troops in Rwanda and no one cares… but with Bush, it’s a quagmire before we even get there. Just saying.</p>
<p>IMO, there’s very little (save Iraq) that you can blame on Bush that you can’t also blame on Clinton. Economy? Hello, Clinton. He handed that one over in bad shape. Levees? So it’s Bush’s fault… because clearly, Clinton did so much to strengthen them. Hurricanes? (Smacks head) Of course, that must have been entirely a result of the Bush administration policies and has nothing to do with the SUV habits that arose under the Clinton administration. 9/11, if anyone’s fault, is CLINTON’S fault. The guy had eight years in office to get the warnings. Al Qeada had been planning that attack for years - so you have a few years of plans under the Clinton administration, but less than 8 months of Bush in office - so clearly, this is Bush’s fault…? Hello, people!</p>
<p>'93 bombing of the World Trade Center…What did Clinton do? Put a blind man in the pokey and sent off a few scuds. That’s the kind of guy we need to put back in the White House?</p>
<p>barrons: whether you agree about the economy or not is just one ignorant misguided opinion, but the fact of the matter is the budget was balanced, the interest rates were low, and tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a foreign country were not murdered. It is also ironic that the evangelican ayatollahs in suites claim to spread the ‘love’ and ‘peace’, but most of them were the cheereleaders and condoned the killings.</p>
<p>The budget was balanced on the basis of what generally turned out to be phony speculation and inflated incomes which quickly came back to earth when the house of cards and Wall St lies were exposed. A balanced budget is nice when you can afford it but in order to get the economy back on its feet extra government spending and tax cuts are typically part of the cure. Until the recent hurricanes the deficit was shrinking beyond projections.
Interest rates are still very reasonable and less than under Clinton.
Also according to many 100’s of thousands died under Saddam so how are they much worse off with maybe 20,000-30,000 dead and a real chance at a free society?</p>
<p>“Re: the politics and economy issue. To quote my (Ph.D. in econ) grandfather, anyone who thinks that the President really influences the economy should also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy - simultaneously. There are these things called economic cycles. Think of a sine wave. There is also a time lag between implemenation of a policy and economic effects - roughly 3-5 years, which is why it’s silly to credit a sitting president with the economy that happens when he is there. Employment, for one, is a lagging indicator of economic recovery - companies overburden their current employees before hiring new ones.”</p>
<p>I’ve been posting just this type of observation for a long time, Aries, but the partisan kool-aid drinkers always dismiss its logic out-of-hand, or else, ignore it all together. In my experience, people who openly and proudly parrot the rhetoric of either of the political extemes are constitutionally incapable of objective analysis of the issues. This is how you get the vociferous insistence that the Republicans or Democrats (pick one) are evil incarnate and totally responsible for virtually everything that has gone wrong in America.</p>
<p>“This is how you get the vociferous insistence that the Republicans or Democrats (pick one) are evil incarnate and totally responsible for virtually everything that has gone wrong in America.”</p>
<p>…because it’s like horse racing - utterly boring unless you have something to cheer for?</p>
<p>On a more serious note, I do think that our two-party system causes a lot of problems. Perhaps a true three-party system (in which no one group has a majority and all three parties have representation) might provide some incentive for politicians to not polarize issues as much… and do their jobs, which is (in part) to work with each other to craft legislation that reflects the will of the people… not the will of whatever slim majority is in power. JMHO.</p>
<p>We do need a third party that represents the issues of us single 20 somethings. Like rolling back the child tax cut, privatizing Medicaid/Medicare, softcore porn on free TV, subsidised gas for single guys, and tax breaks for single parents who actually work.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with the first and last ones… as for #3, hello, it’s called a Victoria’s Secret advertisment - or R-rated movies - or half of what is on television these days. (Okay, I’m completely conservative. We know this.)</p>