Clinton brings it

[elSicomoro]

I lived in the pseudo-south for a year (southeastern Missouri)...that was enough.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
They think we live in the Arctic Circle up here.

I spent two years in New England. Just north of the Manson Nixon line is where the Arctic Circle starts.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by sycamore
I have to wonder...why is there still so much animosity towards Clinton, 3 years after he left office? And why do so many people still like him a great deal?

The same could be said for Bush. There are some politicians who, for all their attempts at unity, end up polarizing.

If Clinton had gotten us to this point in the Iraq war, with the body count and attendent mismanagement, people would be marching on the White House with torches and rope. The amount of slack people are giving Bush is astounding. The way the Right is spinning Kerry, with a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts into some kind of honorary draft dodger, is amazing.

Clinton was an effective politician. He was the Democrats equivalent of Ronald Reagan, who was the smoothest orator I have ever heard and who successfully propped up an incredibly flawed economic policy on charm alone. I was amazed how Reagan could look at members of the press, who are asking serious and substantive questions, and admonish them like children for having doubts. Also how he can use the brilliant 'I don't remember' defense to defuse the Iran-Contra investigation.

To be fair, I don't think he did remember. I personally think the Alzheimers began in his second term and his advisors led him through it.

It seems that we are now at the point where %40-50 of this country will now have to put up with a president they dislike because both sides will play to the extreme right or left to garner the 'radical minorty who always votes' vote. Clinton was much more centrist than most people believe.

For all of the conspiracies about Clinton, he left us in better shape than Reagan did and did not get us bogged down in a two-front war in the Middle East costing hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

I have an 18 year old son who just got his selective service notice. I personally believe that thanks to GWB, there is a %20 chance that we will have the draft reappear in the next 8 years, when he will be eligible. By that single measure, Bush has failed where Clinton, and almost any other modern president, would have succeeded. Mr. 'tax rebate' is responsible for the greatest loss of US servicemen and women since Vietnam.
So millions of American families get 100 rebate checks, and hundreds of American families get death notices. This is not an acceptable trade.

So I would be more than happy to have Clinton, sneak and all. Because having an effective, if sneaky politician in office is better than having a moralistic fuckup who hears only what he wants to hear and is happy to start a 'crusade' against 'evildoers' by spending the lives of men and women who signed on to 'support and defend the Constitution'. I never served, and neither did a lot of these self-righteous assholes on talk radio and TV. And to hear them criticize Kerry for his 'last man to die for a mistake' remark galls me. Because that remark was nothing if not prophetic given our current situation.

As for the 'dirty' campaign about Bush's guard service. I wonder at people who can buy all of the conspiracy theories about Clinton but who are shocked...shocked.. at the suggestion that Bush was a 'fortunate son' who got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War. That's what I hate about a lot of the arguments. People write about how entertainers should stay out of politics, or how biased the media is, but only when they hear something that they don't like or disagree with the speaker.

Bush politicized the war the moment he stepped on that aircraft carrier in his flight suit playing 'warrior king'. Considering the sacrifice he is asking others to make, and the 'dirty tricks' his own side is playing at painting liberals as draft dodgers and wimps, his record is part of the story.

Command-in-Chief is a civilian position. It is one which justs happens to have been held at times by men who were in the service, and most of them were under fire at one point. Bush is a rarity in a president, he was technically a soldier during a war but never made it to combat.

I do not believe that it is necessary for a Commander-in-Chief to have been active military, but I do believe it gives them a good insight into the sacrifice they expect of others. Eisenhower's farewell speech is an example of an ordered military mind evaluating and criticizing the political and economic power structure it had to deal with.

Clinton, for all of his faults, knew he was a fortunate son. He was overseas in school during Vietnam and never had to risk his life. For him, I believe that soldiers would be the 'them' whose deaths would underscore a choice he did not have to make. This may be why he was so successful in keeping casualties low.

Bush, I think, believes the big lie. In his mind he served and was ready to put himself in harms way, and could have been forced to do so at any time. He may not believe that there was ever a safety net provided for him. For him the soldiers are an 'us', and the sacrifice they make is one that he was perfectly willing to make at the time. They can share his crusade because he is one of them.

So yes, I liked Clinton as a president. And if he was preachy, it was a leave them alone kind of preachy. And while he may have nibbled on the Second Amendmant with gun control, it does not compare with the assault on the Constitution we must now endure. He appeared to have a good group of advisors, to whom he appeared to listen. And they were able to keep themselves away from the 'best and brightest' hubris that got us into Vietnam, were able to negotiate internationally, and keep domestic policy on track.

[mrnoodle]

A nicely written, coherent response

But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting.

It's also dirty campaigning. Bush might or might not have missed a couple of monthly meetings, training sessions, etc. while helping someone run for a Senate office. People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny. If there's any wrongdoing there, it's an administrative foulup on the part of the Guard, not some conspiracy.

And as you said, Kerry's valor in combat, while admirable, doesn't equate to an ability to administrate the most powerful military force in the world. I think both sides are kind of missing the mark by even bringing up ANY of this. Kerry did what he was told, Bush did what he was told. Kerry was active duty, so that meant a different set of orders, hence a different outcome for the two.

Secondly, Reaganomics WAS GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. I'm not going to back down on this. The economic prosperity during the Clinton years was a direct result of what was implemented during the 80s: global trade initiatives, deregulation of the industries that drive our country, restoring the strength of the dollar and the stock market. The tech sector experienced HUGE growth, allowing us to play in the same sandbox as Japan, who had dominated us for the previous decade. All of this created jobs. No, it didn't help raise the minimum wage, but it provided opportunity to grow out of minimum wage jobs.

Thirdly, the war on terror (I'm sick of the term as well) was dumped on Bush's head. Previous administrations, both Dem and Republican, are to blame for the fact that there even EXISTS an al-Quaeda. While we obsessed over Milosevic's penicillin factories, a far more dangerous threat was building under our noses. Now we have to deal with it, and as terrible as war is, it's the only language terrorists understand. You can't negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself and runs into a shopping center screaming something about Allah. Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to remain safe. The UN would have us believe that diplomats wringing their hands and rending their garments is going to protect us from countries led by despots. They're sheep, plain and simple. And Kerry has said in the past (I can't find the quote, but I'm working on it) that he feels that American forces should be deployed internationally ONLY under the direction and approval of the United Nations. Oh-en-ell-wi.

No sane person believes in a one-world government. Some pretend to, only because they suffer under the delusion that the US would be in charge of it.

I'm out of steam. lol.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting.

The only place I've heard the degrading of the current National Guard is conservatives attributing it to liberals, or Bush himself trying to deflect a question. But there are a lot of people, and you may have heard something I didn't. Attacking Bush's service record has no bearing on the current National Guard, because at the time Bush was in it, the National Guard didn't get sent overseas. So when Bush jumped the line to get in, he was avoiding the draft. Equating that type of service to today's Guard is what really denigrates the men and women in Iraq. Just ask Colin Powell: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

It's also dirty campaigning. Bush might or might not have missed a couple of monthly meetings, training sessions, etc. while helping someone run for a Senate office. People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny. If there's any wrongdoing there, it's an administrative foulup on the part of the Guard, not some conspiracy.

If Bush was forgiven more absences than the average Guard member, I sincerely doubt that it was an accident.

"never met with this kind of scrutiny"? Are you kidding? Bush is the president! He should have more scrutiny than some random joe off the street. And Clinton's activities during the war were indeed scrutinized this heavily, but he was upfront about not wanting to go to Vietnam. As with most scandals, Bush's ridiculous attempts to control the release of records is likely to be worse for him than if he just admitted that he "had other priorities" during Vietnam, like Cheney.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
I can only speak for myself of course. What some people saw as charm, I saw as snake-oil salesmanship.

You gotta be slick to be in politics, though...even the gruffest of politicians know how to play the game.

Clinton is just a well-coached, well-practiced, uppity version of what he used to be, which is why he makes such excellent speeches.

Most politicians have their handlers...but you have to be able to make a speech your own. Clinton does that consistently. Reagan did it too.

Remember, diplomacy is just telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they will enjoy the trip. *(quote's paraphrased)

I agree...and who would you rather see doing that? A slickster or a provoker?

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
If Bush was forgiven more absences than the average Guard member, I sincerely doubt that it was an accident.

"never met with this kind of scrutiny"? Are you kidding? Bush is the president! He should have more scrutiny than some random joe off the street. And Clinton's activities during the war were indeed scrutinized this heavily, but he was upfront about not wanting to go to Vietnam. As with most scandals, Bush's ridiculous attempts to control the release of records is likely to be worse for him than if he just admitted that he "had other priorities" during Vietnam, like Cheney.

Here is an article that kind of encapsulates the conservative view of this whole thing. It also reinforces my view that the issue is pretty much not going to pan out for either side.

[mrnoodle]

Originally posted by sycamore
I agree...and who would you rather see doing that? A slickster or a provoker?

It doesn't matter. In the end, diplomacy is just so much blahblahblah. Both sides always know what the outcome is going to be (at least the front-line diplomats do, even if their handlers don't), and they're just following their lines.

What matters is policy, and in the long view, liberal government is bad for this country. It encourages suckling of the government teat at the expense of taxpayers, vast amounts of money go to programs that never pay off (the notable Clinton exception being Americorps), and the foreign policy has historically been abysmal. Too many people refuse to look at liberalism for what it is because they've been convinced that white people getting rich only happens when black people starve. It's all scare tactics and class envy, and every time this country falls for it, some mean old conservative has to come along and fix everything that the warm fuzzy Marxist has fucked up.

Anyway, at the end of the day, we're more concerned about Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Tittie Extravaganza. No matter who gets elected, we will pretty much live the same lives. For all the talk about rich people, their wealth never hurts us personally. Likewise, I don't know many people who go downtown and write personal checks to the junkie in the cardboard box. Who cares who's president, let's go have a beer.

edit: last graf is smartass comment on voter apathy, which I just realized didn't go over. I'm not adept at thinking prior to talking sometimes, oops.

[wolf]

Originally posted by sycamore
Bubba as US representative to the UN...perfect.

This is actually scarier than the notion of President Hillary.

US out of the UN now!!!

[Happy Monkey]

from the article
Which Kerry would be president, the hero who advances assertively against the threat of danger? Or the antiwar demonstrator who turns protest into political currency?

I want both. I want a John Kerry who advances assertively against ACTUAL danger, and protests when we overstep our bounds. I would prefer one who was against the Iraq war from the get-go, but I'll settle for one who at least realizes now that it was wrong.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by wolf
This is actually scarier than the notion of President Hillary.

US out of the UN now!!!

Relax, you spazz...the US doesn't give half a shit about the UN anyway. You basically have nothing to worry about.

[Slartibartfast]

The US jerking off the UN is part of the reason the UN is losing its validity. Just like the US not signing the Kyoto agreement...

And yes, the UN is nowhere near perfect, but its better than nothing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Richlevy, you're right about the guard. When you talk about Bush's service in the guard you have to put it in the time frame.
During the Viet Nam War entering the guard WAS DRAFT DODGING. Everybody knew it. It's where connected people hid their spawn.
The only guard members that went to war were volunteers and they were mostly Korean War or shortly there after vets, that joined the guard because there wasn't a reserve unit handy. Some of these guys were chafing to get back into it and volunteered to do so although most were forced to be instructors.

So don't be fooled by today's standards with no huge standing army and no draft mill humming. I can still see the looks on the draftee's faces as the man went down the line saying army, army, marines, army, army, marines, army.......

[richlevy]

Originally posted by mrnoodle
A nicely written, coherent response

But I can't agree on several key points in your argument. First of all, attacking Bush's service record is one thing. Degrading service in the National Guard is another thing altogether. And that's exactly what the liberals are doing, whether intentionally or not. There are Guardsmen getting shot at right now in Iraq, yet the liberal side wants to paint Guard service as some kind of 'military lite' for people afraid to get their hands dirty. That's just plain untrue and insulting.

I find a conflict in your arguments. First you defend Bush by stating that people opt out of Guard meetings all of the time, but that it is not 'military lite'. I agree that today's Guard is right in the middle of it all. And the sacrifice that these men are making, thanks to our current president, is inspiring and heartbreaking. But at the time Bush was in the Guard, it was a way to serve with no risk.

People opt out of Guard meetings all the time for various personal reasons, and it's never met with this kind of scrutiny.

That because 'people' don't singlehandedly start wars and overrun countries.

And as you said, Kerry's valor in combat, while admirable, doesn't equate to an ability to administrate the most powerful military force in the world. I think both sides are kind of missing the mark by even bringing up ANY of this. Kerry did what he was told, Bush did what he was told. Kerry was active duty, so that meant a different set of orders, hence a different outcome for the two.

But it does speak to character, the ability to make decisions under pressure, and the ability to manage situations when they begin to fall apart. You don't win silver and bronze starts for just doing what you're told. They are given for actions 'above and beyond' doing what you are told. I cannot even imagine Bush in the same situation as Kerry was in performing on the same level as Kerry.

As far as administrating the most powerful military force in the world, I think most objective views of the war in Iraq past the 'mission accomplished' point set by President Bush would note the lack of planning, supply, organization, etc.

Secondly, Reaganomics WAS GOOD ECONOMIC POLICY. I'm not going to back down on this.

While I admire your gumption, I have to disagree. Some deregulation may have been necessary, but throwing open the doors did not work in the long run. Reagan made a lot of money for some very influential people, which may be one reason they love him so much. However, his policies ignored the reality that enough monopolies and oligopolies existed that regulation was necessary for a fair market. The burnout at the end of the 80's was partly due to the market realizing that there were long term consequences to the short term gains.

You can't negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself and runs into a shopping center screaming something about Allah. Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need to remain safe.

You also can't bomb everyplace they might be or invade every country where you think they may be hiding. Bush is basically pointing his finger at almost every country in the middle east. But he's treating North Korea with kid gloves because they have nuclear weapons. This lesson is not lost on any country. GWB has done more to promote nuclear proliferation than Dr. Strangelove.

BTW, a few hours after I wrote my post about presidents who were veterans and Eisenhower, I heard a commentator bring up the same points.

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by richlevy


You also can't bomb everyplace they might be or invade every country where you think they may be hiding. Bush is basically pointing his finger at almost every country in the middle east. But he's treating North Korea with kid gloves because they have nuclear weapons. This lesson is not lost on any country. GWB has done more to promote nuclear proliferation than Dr. Strangelove.

BTW, a few hours after I wrote my post about presidents who were veterans and Eisenhower, I heard a commentator bring up the same points.

Oh I thought it was because North Korea didn't have anything we wanted.