A Great Statesman

Republicans can find a lot about Bill Clinton not to like, but you have to admit that he is trying to be a statesman and that he probably has the brains and charisma to pull it off. If you watched President Clinton on This Week or you heard him talk about the Clinton Global Initiative you found criticism of the current President’s policies, but without the acrimony you get from howling Howard or broken record Boxer. He also has some ideas that are not just negations of Bush’s competence or mere assertions that Dems can do better.

The worst enemy of real progress for the Democratic Party are some of the people like those right here in the blogosphere: the "Bush sucks" or "Bush lied" crowd. Get over it. Or in terms you might better understand - move on, guys.

Bill Clinton is in many ways a tragic figure. He was a good president, but he was elected four or eight years too soon. Had he spent a little more time "in the wilderness" to mature his ideas and give his lesser desires a chance to abate, he could have been a great president. He still has a chance to be a great American statesman. Dems should pay more attention to his example.

Posted by Jack at September 18, 2005 3:26 PM
Comments
Comment #81280

J.Anthony Matel,

I agree. He’s one of the bright spots in the political firmament these days. I was really ashamed of him with the Lewinsky affair, but feel like he’s stepped up and is becoming a statesman. Finally.

Posted by: Dennis at September 18, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #81281

I agree. Clinton may become a better leader now that he is not the President.
He really has noone to answer to now and can say and do things that he was not able to do before.
The same problem EVERY President faces - Republican OR Democrat.
As long as he stays ‘diplomatic’ he may actually help with some of the problems our world faces.
I was one that thought he should replace Kofi - it probably would have been a mistake now that I think about it more.

Posted by: dawn at September 18, 2005 3:47 PM
Comment #81286

Jack-
I’ll move on when Bush stops doing damage to my country. Until then, I will take the attitude that we don’t have the time to wait for Bush to get it right. Bush must be on his game now, or people will suffer, and unfortunately, Bush will not listen to us. Will you folks finally get fed up at some point, and start telling this guy to get his act together?

I need a president in the White House who’s actions aren’t giving me grey hairs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2005 4:26 PM
Comment #81288

Wow… Republicans appreciating one of the greatest leaders of our time. I knew history brings out the real story eventually and that historians would eventually give him his due, but I never thought I’d live to see the day that those who led the lynch mob against him would soften their blind hatred of him. Now it will become apparent that even though he made some mistakes, they PALE in comparison to the current administration’s course of action. Perhaps one day they will see how he actually tried to HELP America and Americans.

“The worst enemy of real progress for the Democratic Party are some of the people like those right here in the blogosphere: the “Bush sucks” or “Bush lied” crowd. Get over it. Or in terms you might better understand - move on, guys.”

Move on to what? Support adminstrative policies which I believe will destroy America? I have no ‘hatred’ for Bush. But his policies go against everything that I believe makes America strong.

This Ayn Rand approach, this Social Darwinism, that the Cheney/Neocon crowd believes in is folly. If you think that pushing all the resources to the wealthy few will make us a stronger nation, you are fooling yourself. I come from a very strongly conservative family. Life here in America should not be like a Monopoly game. We soon will have too many losers for it to be fun anymore. When Barbara Bush tells the victims of Hurricane Katrina that they are really living it up in the Astrodome (basically an American Marie Antoinette) it is time to get ready for the revolution…

..which is really sad, because these things rarely turn out well for the first 50 or so years. Think of the Bolshevik Revolution, The People’s Revolution, the French Revolution, etc. Lots of blood, lots of bad decisions. Conservatives need to wake up and look farther down the road than the next quarter, next year, or the next election cycle. You are the pro-family crowd, right? Don’t you care about your children? They will pay the price of our folly.

You hung our best and brightest from your conservative hanging tree. You IMPEACHED the man you now call a great statesman! Don’t you see the irony of it all?

Posted by: Rick at September 18, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #81297

John,
Your right about Clinton’s Global Summit this weekend, it should of made bigger headlines.However, it was just not him. Did you read “The Who’s Who List” that attended the event? Kings & Queens, Rich & Poor, and Leaders from all over The Earth came together to do more than just talk.

If anyone is interested here is a link to the Summit Transcrits. Although I only glanced over them, I was surprised about how serious these folks are about doing something Right Here! Right Now! In fact, the one thing that was made loud and clear was the idea that you had to keep your committment or you won’t be asked back next year.

It’s ashame President Bush didn’t attend; however, he did send Ms. Rice. Republicans need to read her comments closely because she showed part of the problem facing America as we move into the 21st Century.

Dennis,
Although like you I think that the Lewinsky affair is considered unaceptable behavior for our President, I was just as outraged over The Republican Party calling for his Impeachment. Because I knew that NONE OF THEM had the courage to stand on the Floor of the Senate and call into question what the term “Sexual Relationship” meant. Showboating does not cut it and as pointed out by the 9/11 Commission may of cost American Lifes.

No, I try not to judge the person seating in the Elected Offices of this Land for their job is not easy; nevertheless, I will judge their words and actions as they attempt to set policy for our society to folow. Currently, that happens to be the Republican Party and as to date they have shown me Nothing that I can say is remotely close to what they say their party stands for.

I am not against business nor personal responsibilty, yet given the facts can you tell me one thing that The Republicans have held themselve to the same standards that they use to bash the Democrats for? Proof of WMD’s should of been held to the same proof required by them when Clinton wanted to go to war. Fiscal responsibility, well that’s a joke. And morals, where do I begin.

No, Clinton is doing something good right now because he does not have to fight a Republican lead Congress that was hell bent on showing their butt on every issue. Somehow we have to get Congress to understand that after they are elected to office, it is THEIR JOB to represent All Americans in their State not just the ones they are in bed with.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 18, 2005 6:08 PM
Comment #81299

He is a great statesman. This thinking has been in my head and it has been tempting to write about his efforts in these last few months. But, it is far, far better that this evaluation come from a Republican supporter - it has far more credence that way.

Really good article Jack.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #81301

Not only will I not move on, but it is my patriotic duty to support any American organization that has as it’s primary objective the the total political desctruction, by any means necessary, of the un-American neo-fascist cult currently governing from the sewers of the American political, business, and religious communities, aided and abetted by a corporately manipulated news media that is as corrupt as the three previous mentioned American institutions.

Posted by: dtom21 at September 18, 2005 6:47 PM
Comment #81306

dtom21 sounds like a voice in search of a country that doesn’t exist.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 7:51 PM
Comment #81310

dtom21,

We’ll get closer to your goal when we see an influx of aggressive, committed and vocal independents in Congress. Only when we break the back of the political Cosa Nostra called the Democratic and Republican party leadership will we have a chance to make fundemental reforms in our government. These parties feed off each other and I’m not sure that collusion relative to trading power doesn’t occur on a regular basis. Revolution must come from within and must come from the youth of this country. Kids, don’t check out of the process. Get mad, get active and make changes to this system so “we the people” get back into control.

Posted by: Dennis at September 18, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #81312

A Great Statesman? Clinton? This is the conservative column isn’t it? Where’s the multiculturalism = evil slant? :)

I know Jack always claims that he supports his president but I think he can’t help but notice the one thing that that Bush lacks which Clinton has in abundance - say it with me y’all: Oration. The president is not a good public speaker.

Ever since I started reading blogs, some of the things that conservatives like Jack have written have made some sense to me. As a result I’ve tried to make myself listen to President Bush speak but…I can’t. I really really can’t do it. Cheney, who scares the crap out of me, I can listen to for hours - remember the VP debate last year? Even Santorum sounds perfectly sane when he speaks. So other republicans sure, but the president himself? Uh uh.

The reason why I say this is because reading a transcript from an interview is twice the work and has half the impact of a good public speaker to someone as politically naive as myself. Never underestimate the power of a good orator - afterall, my ignorant vote is worth the same as Jack, David or Stephen’s more informed one. I really hope that Clinton’s Global Initiative thing is successful and hopefully, it will benefit the democrats in a small way.

Nice article Jack - kudos to you for actually publishing it.

Posted by: Nikita at September 18, 2005 8:48 PM
Comment #81313

Sheesh… Republicans consider a blowjob between consenting adults a great calamity. Considering that Republicans went against Clinton on EVERY issue seems to be missing in this lovefest. Clinton balanced the budget, went to war without casualties AND had someone else pay for it, improved US Stature in the world and tried to kill OBL TWICE despite Republican resistance!!!

Posted by: Aldous at September 18, 2005 8:50 PM
Comment #81319

Aldous, Clinton and the Republican Congress found common ground. Something you ignore or are incapable of expressing. It is amazing what can be accomplished when competitors find themselves in the position of being dependent upon each other for any progress at all. Such was the case with Clinton and the Republican Congress. May we never again have Congress and the Whitehouse controlled by a single party, ever, EVER!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 18, 2005 9:46 PM
Comment #81325

With all due respect, Jack - you are the one who needs to “get over it”.

People aren’t constantly complaining about Bush because of close elections or decisions made 3 years ago. We’re complaining because of a pattern of behavior that puts him in the rank of one of the worst Presidents of the last 100 years, and the failure to ever admit, let alone correct, a mistake (his handling of New Orleans notwithstanding - his first admission of error in 5 years!)

Don’t continue to cry for a powerless left to ride to the rescue and fix all of the GOPs mistakes. Stop making excuses and start holding your President accountable for his actions and force him to do what’s necessary to get this country back in the right direction.

Thanks for coming to Clinton’s defense. You’re about 7 years too late, but what the hey. Better late than never.

You and others in the red column have the gall to act surprised that there might be political acrimony in this country. You can look back to the coup de tas impeachment of Mr. Clinton as the point of no return. You reap what you sow, baby.

Posted by: Burt at September 18, 2005 10:17 PM
Comment #81327

I give credit when I see it. The strength of the U.S. is that we are a society that can hold more than one opinion at the same time. I can support GW Bush and still admire what Bill Clnton is doing.

Nikita

I believe that Clinton does have more charisma than President Bush. But that isn’t the only thing that is important in a president. Strengths are often the mirror image of weaknesses. When a person tells me he is a perfectionist, for example, I know he is a poor leader. Clinton’s charisma, or more precisely the ability it gave him to duck out of sticky situations, helped corrupt his character and make him inconsistent – which was why he was a good and not a great president. President Bush has great focus and tenacity. On the negative side of this, it is what you guys see as stubbornness.

Since we buy the package with leaders, we have to take the sweet with the bitter and often what we like best about the person is also his greatest weakness.

It is always dangerous to make predictions (especially about the future – right) but I believe that Bush – like Reagan and Truman – will be much better treated by later historians than by contemporaries. Clinton maybe is a little more like his idol John Kennedy, whose reputation has had a different experience. But maybe if Kennedy had lived, he could have become a great statesman like Clinton is becoming.

Posted by: Jack at September 18, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #81329
President Bush has great focus and tenacity.

Ha ha! I’ve got 3 simple letters that prove you wrong, Jack.

O-B-L

History will spit on this administration.

Posted by: Burt at September 18, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #81336

I always liked Clinton the man (placing me amongst a minority on the right), but a great statesman? I don’t see it.

He was arguably the best of his generation and deserves his due for that. A terrific speaker, a fine intellect, and I always felt that his heart was in the right place even when I disagreed with him, as I usually did.

Other parts of him, though, were in the wrong place. Did the Republicans overreact to Clinton’s misdeeds? I would say yes, but like Nixon, Clinton handed his enemies the sword and that was no fault but his own. Clinton himself was no stranger to hard-ball politics, and he reaped what he sowed.

If anybody should be angry at Clinton now, it should be the left. Clinton entered office with Democratic control of both houses of Congress and unlike Bush, he was far less willing to spend his personal political capital to help downticket candidates. Under Clinton’s watch, the Dems lost control of the national goverment.

You may want to discount his personal weaknesses as merely consentual sex among adults, but it did great damage to the American left on two fronts.

1). Before, during and after the Anita Hill hearings, the left took a strong moral position against sexual misdeeds in the workplace, but could no longer be taken seriously when they made an exception for one of their own. If Clinton had been a university president having sex with graduate students, the left would have cried for his head. But this was no less than the President of the United States who was taking sexual liberties with an underling, and their hypocricy was exposed.

2). If it wasn’t for Clinton’s sexual misdeeds, Al Gore arguably would have been elected President in 2000. Defend Clinton on this front all you want (and I’ll partially agree) but if it weren’t for Bill Clinton’s inabiity to keep it in his pants, George W. Bush would not be president today.

Posted by: sanger at September 18, 2005 11:45 PM
Comment #81344
Defend Clinton on this front all you want (and I’ll partially agree) but if it weren’t for Bill Clinton’s inabiity to keep it in his pants, George W. Bush would not be president today.

I agree with you on this. But I don’t blame Clinton for it. I blame those shallow enough to decide the future of the country based on such trivial justifications.

Posted by: Burt at September 18, 2005 11:58 PM
Comment #81351

Burt, most Americans never really got behind the Republican condemnation of Clinton for the perjury charges, and didn’t agree with his impeachment. Neither did the great majority feel that sexual matters alone (like cheating in marriage) are enough reason to disqualify anyone for office.
Saying that Americans were merely prudish about sex is a gross oversimplification.

Their disapproval was hardly trivial because Clinton’s actions—the legalities aside—were incredibly reckless and incredibly immoral, especially within the context of a workplace.

Sex is one thing. A boss having sex with a young woman who is directly under his authority, even if the young woman is willing, is never “trivial.” I don’t know what your work environment is like, but
that’s would be more than enough to get someone fired in any place I’ve ever worked. It is absolutely inexcusable.

The majority didn’t want to see Clinton impeached or prosecuted for this offense, but the disapproval was widespread and justified and Clinton was absolutely useless to Al Gore, who otherwise might have tried to run on—instead of distance himself from—the Clinton record.

In hindsight, I’m relieved that Clinton self-destructed, because it enabled George W. Bush to win an election he never would have otherwise.

Posted by: sanger at September 19, 2005 12:39 AM
Comment #81352

Clinton is bashing Bush as we speak…and he committed crimes that are punishable with impeachment and removal from office…it doesn’t matter what the context.

Posted by: The Game at September 19, 2005 12:51 AM
Comment #81354

Sanger,

You’re naive. Guys have been banging their secretaries for so long, it became a cliche’. Yeah, some of ‘em were probably even Republican. We just didn’t spend millions of tax payer money to investigate every single low-rent motel in the country.

In hindsight, I’m relieved that Clinton self-destructed, because it enabled George W. Bush to win an election he never would have otherwise.

I’ll remember that the next time you complain that the left is taking glee in another W. gaffe.

Posted by: Burt at September 19, 2005 1:26 AM
Comment #81359
You’re naive. Guys have been banging their secretaries for so long, it became a cliche’.

Thanks. That’s exactly the kind of “progressive” and forward-looking view on women and women’s rights in the workplace which the left found it necessary to adopt in order to defend Clinton.

Oddly, I don’t remember quotes quite like that during the Anita Hill hearings. “Anita, you’re naive! Guys have been banging their secretaries for so long, it became a cliche’.”

Ah, the high principles and morality of the left.
And they wonder why the American public has thrown their butts out of office.

Posted by: sanger at September 19, 2005 1:47 AM
Comment #81362

Good topic, Jack. Like David, I was going to write this one up, but I’m glad you did it.

If you watched President Clinton on This Week or you heard him talk about the Clinton Global Initiative you found criticism of the current President?s policies, but without the acrimony you get from howling Howard or broken record Boxer.

LOL, I think you could learn a lesson from him, Jack. At the very least, you could come up with better put-downs. :)

Seriously, the CGI is a great program. I suspect we’ll see it shaping global policy, because all the most influential world leaders are pretty excited about it. If Bill Clinton were nominated for UN Secretary General, I think he’d get the job.

Everywhere in the world I’ve been, people tell me of their respect and affection for Bill Clinton (usually after I yell, “Don’t shoot! I’m a Democrat!”). In India, all they could talk about was how they admired Clinton — and what is that “jackass” Bush doing selling nuclear capable F-16s to Pakistan?

I was in Singapore’s Chinatown (which is funny in itself), and several of the stalls had pictures of Bill Clinton hanging on the walls. I asked the madam who owned one of the stalls, “Did you ever talk to him?” She laughed and said, “He’s my boyfriend! I LOVE Bill Clinton!” Had me rolling. :)

Heh. It just occurred to me that Bill Clinton is riding the crest of global integration. As globalization breaks down national barriers, global leadership is no longer constrained to the nation state. Clinton just handed out assignments to a whole buch of heads of state. He may become the first de-facto non-governmental world leader. Wouldn’t that be a hoot! :)

Posted by: American Pundit at September 19, 2005 2:25 AM
Comment #81364

Sanger,

You misunderstand, not surprisingly. What Clinton did was terrible, and there is no defending it.

But in no way do I think he should have been impeached, and according to you, you believe that most of the American public agrees with me. And for those that voted against Gore because of what Clinton did - well, that doesn’t show a lot of insight, now does it?

As for Anita, I believe that Monica was consensual and Anita was not. That makes a big difference in my book. But then again, for some of you on the right, maybe you just take it wherever you can get it.

Posted by: Burt at September 19, 2005 3:24 AM
Comment #81371

I always wanted to take a few Republicans, make them wear a “I voted for Bush” t-shirt and have them walk around in another country. I actually know of a Conservative Young Republican who did this on a dare in Indonesia. Poor guy was in the hospital for a week.

Posted by: Aldous at September 19, 2005 4:15 AM
Comment #81377

Burt:

The problem I had with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair was that the “left” tried to make it into a privacy issue. The investigation showed that Clinton had Lewinsky in his office during a phone call to Alabama Representative Sonny Callahan. They discussed Balkan troop movements, which is hardly something an intern should have been privy to.

By getting blowjobs while doing his job in his office, this no longer qualified as a personal issue. It became a public issue, in the same way a Marine guard at an embassy is restricted from sexual affiliation during his tenure.

Jack:

I agree with you in part that Clinton could have been a great President. I disagreed with some of his policies, but not all. As Watergate obscured the good things that Nixon did, so too did the Lewinsky affair obscure Clinton’s presidency.

The most interesting thing I find is that many on the left who claim to be non-partisan can’t find a single thing about Bush—not a SINGLE THING—that they like. I can go back through every Presidency within my memory and find both good AND bad about each President, regardless of their party affiliation. Yet the “non-partisans” can find only bad in Republicans and good in Democrats. And it is they who are attacking you for having said Clinton is becoming a great statesman. How funny, if it werent so sad.

David Remer said it well—he is an exception, I guess.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 19, 2005 7:48 AM
Comment #81381

Joebagodonuts:

Just exactly what do you think Bush HAS done good during his reign?

Posted by: Aldous at September 19, 2005 8:11 AM
Comment #81384

Name ALL the Democrats who refused to add their own pork to any bill because THEY wanted to be fiscally responsible.
No. Bush has not used his ‘veto pen’(wish he had). Just think how loud the screaming would be if he couldn’t even use PORK to try and bring ‘the country’ together.
How many of our so-called leaders have shut down their ‘pork projects’ to help pay for Katrina on either side? I heard Minnesota is sending back 4 million that was earmarked for a parking garage. Boy. That will go a long way.
Stop giving Clinton all the credit for the economic boom of the nineties, it was Gore who invented the internet and got everything started.
Imagine the money our government could have brought in if they had a ‘pay per view’ webcam under the desk in the oval office while Clinton was there!!

Posted by: bugcrazy at September 19, 2005 8:50 AM
Comment #81385

Jack,

I’m a little late in responding here, but you give the impression that the cries of “Bush sucks” or “Bush lied” are merely ad hominem arguments lacking specificity or cause. Not so. Most Dems, Indies and even many Repubs are not against Bush as a man…they are against Bush as a reckless President:

• Turning a $5 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion deficit
• 2.4 million Americans who lost their jobs during the first two and a half years of the Bush administration.
• The first administration since Herbert Hoover’s to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office.
• 1.6% increase in economic growth since Bush took office, the slowest rate of increase over an equivalent period for any administration in 50 years.
• Tax cuts that are not equitable by any standard
• The disgusting, pork-laden Transportation Bill
• The biggest spender since Lyndon Johnson, with not one single spending bill veto while in office
• Etc…

Thus, when many state that Bush sucks, lied, whatever, there are reasons for these positions. And until Bush changes his arrogantly destructive patterns, people should not get over it. Rather, they should continue to try to hold him accountable, as he clearly lacks that capacity himslef.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 19, 2005 8:52 AM
Comment #81387

I did not vote for Clinton, nor am I a republican. I felt at the time and still do that this whole focus on oral sex was a farce. I would first point to the fact that had President Clinton merely admitted that yes he had sexual encounters it would have ended. I’d next add Clinton was not the first President to have sexual encounters in the Whitehouse or exhibit questionable behavior prior to being elected.

Ma, ma, where’s my Pa?
Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!

Posted by: Lisa Renee at September 19, 2005 9:23 AM
Comment #81389

How do we know that the ‘parties that be’ don’t actually work together on getting someone into the oval office?

Posted by: snookered at September 19, 2005 9:31 AM
Comment #81390

Jack,

Bravo! This has been the most inspiring article I’ve seen on WB for quite a while. It’s nice to see someone reach across the columns to give credit where credit is due.

As for the Dems who are arguing that they have the right to complain that Bush sucks… they are correct. However, just complaining about Bush won’t get a Democrat elected. We all know that Bush has made several big screw-ups while in office. But, by and large, the American people would rather stick with the idiot we know than take a chance on the idiot we don’t know. So your first step needs to be finding a Democratic candidate who isn’t an idiot!

That’s why I like Clinton — he stands FOR something. Kerry just stood AGAINST Bush. If he had a message of what he stood FOR, he utterly failed to present it to the people.

I caught a few minutes of Howard Dean on “The View” the other day. I’m not sure which was worse — watching Howard Dean, or watching “The View”. I couldn’t stand to listen to the guy. He’s attacking Bush with the same “no holds barred” attitude that Bush uses against terrorists. Neither is afraid to bend the truth, or ignore it entirely, in order to weaken his opponent. It’s one of my biggest problems with Bush, and Dean mirrors it instead of rising above it.

The Democrats need more Bill Clintons and fewer Howard Deans if they ever plan to win the White House again. They can’t just wait for the Republicans to screw up and choose a bad candidate — the GOP did that in the last 2 elections and still won! The Dems need something better.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 19, 2005 9:33 AM
Comment #81391

Lisa, I’m afraid I’d have to disagree with you that had Clinton admitted the affair that it would have died. I believe there was a concerted effort by people like George Mellon Scaife to bring him down as a president. Had they not landed on the sexual peccadillos it would have been something else. Clinton is by no means a saint. He’s a consumate politician and in that regard has little problem in manipulating the “truth” to meet his needs. However, at his core, I think he is an empathetic man, who by virtue of his upbringing has genuine sympathies for those less fortunate than him.

Joebagodonuts, here’s something good about GWB. I believe he is truly a reformed human being and has put the drinking, coke snorting irresponsibilities of his youth and early adulthood behind him. I appreciate his commitment to his faith and his family. I believe he is sincere about education reform. I think he truly believes that he has the best interests of the country at heart.

Posted by: Dennis at September 19, 2005 9:37 AM
Comment #81393

oops. I meant to say Richard Mellon Scaife and not George in my previous post regarding Clinton attackers. My apologies..

Posted by: Dennis at September 19, 2005 9:43 AM
Comment #81394

Mister Magoo,

And until Bush changes his arrogantly destructive patterns, people should not get over it. Rather, they should continue to try to hold him accountable, as he clearly lacks that capacity himslef.

We all know that Bush sucks. That one has been established already. But what is your alternative? Kerry wasn’t an acceptable alternative, because all he stood for was the assertion that Bush sucked.

How do you expect to “hold him accountable”? Do you think the Republican Congress is going to hold him accountable? Or the right-wing judiciary? The voters won’t have the chance to hold him accountable again, so you can’t hang your hopes there.

And, even if you could get the guy impeached, you’d just be putting another Republican in office to replace him.

The only hope Democrats have is to plan for the future — the congressional elections in 2006, and the presidency in 2008. You don’t do that by attacking the current president. You do that by developing a solid plan for America.

The American people want someone with a plan — a vision for the future of America. In 2000 and 2004, the Republicans ran an idiot with a plan. The Democrats ran an intellectual without a plan. Guess who won?

The lesson here? Quit attacking the idiot, and start working on your plan for America!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 19, 2005 9:44 AM
Comment #81397

I write something good about Clinton and I get mostly criticism of George Bush.

Working on the comments.

Mr. Magoo
Clinton did a good job with the economy, but presidents don’t make the economy by themselves and there is lag time involved in everything. A lot of the 1990s boom was made possible by the reorganizations of the 1980s and you will recall the boom started in 1991 – a year and a half before Clinton took office.

As for lag times, firms make employment decisions months of years in advance in response to economic conditions. What happens in the first year – maybe two – of a president’s term is the carry over from his predecessor. You can’t really blame Bush for the job losses in the first two years of his term. There is almost nothing he could have done to cause of prevent any job losses in 2001. 2002 his policies began to take hold and you should really be looking at 2003 to 2011 as the Bush years for the economy.

The economy now, BTW, is very good and has been for the last two years. Those that refuse to see it (or act on it) will literally be poorer as a result.

Re Monika

I did truly enjoy watching the women’s groups swallow their pride. Those people who were so fierce in the Thomas hearings just took it for Clinton. Monika was certainly that classic case of sexual harassment by their standards. They never cared whether or not the woman said yes or no. It was always the disproportionate status with them. That is what they tried on Thomas. He is only accused of making dirty jokes and asking for dates, btw.

Clinton did two good things inadvertently.

1. He stopped the feminist witch hunting re sexual harassment and made it more reasonable. They had to defend him and couldn’t be so silly.
2. He destroyed the moral argument for affirmative action, when he (and Hilary) openly made the argument that it was not to make up for past discrimination, but rather to make things “look like America.” Affirmative action became a lot like matching the colors of the furniture in your house and much easier to attack.

And I still thank him for welfare reform and NAFTA. No Republicans could have pushed them thorough.

Joe

You are right about the Bush bashing. I think there is just a really different perception of reality. I see the world as safer than it was on 9/11, although back then we didn’t know how dangerous it was. This is subject to some interpretation.

What I can’t understand is the pessimism about the economy, where anyone who is buying or selling anything, investing or working for a living can see that things are generally good.

Posted by: Jack at September 19, 2005 9:56 AM
Comment #81404

Aldous:

Just exactly what do you think Bush HAS done good during his reign?

Posted by Aldous at September 19, 2005 08:11 AM

I’ll give you a few things I think have been good and bad. We wont agree on my list, I’m sure, but that is not the issue. My post was about partisanship, and not any of the specific good/bad issues I list below. Let’s not diverge into discussing those issues.

As I said, I can look at any Presidency in my memory and find good and bad. To that degree, I am less partisan than someone who cannot find a single thing good about this Presidency. The same goes for someone who cannot find anything bad about this Presidency.

That they cannot do so does not mean they are correct—it simply means they are partisan.

Good things:
-Removing Saddam
-Compromise on stem cell research
-Invasion of Afghanistan
-That the economy has improved after 9-11, acctg scandals, bankruptcies and tech bubble bursting. Still room to go.
-Negotiations with North Korea re nukes
-Libya agreeing to dismantle arsenal
-Potential progress with Israel/Palestine.
-Negotiations with Iran re nukes.

Bad things:

-Excessive spending (both parties involved, but Repubs have more power now to stop it)
-Bolton recess appointment
-Negative attacks (McCain, etc.)
-Post war handling of Iraq
-Dissemination of pre-war intelligence as the worst possible outcomes, as opposed to a transparent and clear viewing of the possibilities

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 19, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #81405
That?s why I like Clinton ? he stands FOR something. Kerry just stood AGAINST Bush.

C’mon, Rob. That’s just ridiculous. You guys coined the term “flip-flopper” for Clinton. He was the guy the right accused of not standing for anything, just following the polls.

I admire what Kerry stood for, and it wasn’t just anti-Bush. It was an effective plan for affordable healthcare, it was the plan to defuse North Korea that Bush finally adopted, it was effective measures against terrorism at home and abroad, it was reinstatement of fiscal discipline and the pay-as-you-go rule, I could go on and on.

Rob, the election’s over. You don’t need to spout the GOP’s daily anti-Kerry talking points any more. It’s OK to acknowledge that Kerry didn’t really shoot himself in the ass in Vietnam or argue three sides of an issue. He would have been just as effective as Clinton, and certainly more effective than Bush.

BTW, here’s a good thing about Bush. He’s finally decided to listen to the smart people in his administration, rather than the neo-con wackos. Too bad it took three years of war in Iraq, 8 North Korean nuclear bombs, and a bazillion dollar budget deficit before he started.

Hell, after apologizing for the poor response to Katrina and eating humble pie by telling Hill to offer Kim Jong-Il the exact same agreement Clinton gave him, I’m beginning to think Bush may even get us out of Iraq with a little dignity left. But I’m not going to put money on it. How’s that for some bi-partisan love?

Posted by: American Pundit at September 19, 2005 10:26 AM
Comment #81409

Let’s put a few failures of Billy’s on the table.

1) 9/11 OBL started planning this and moving terrorist into the US before the attacks. Clinton cut intelligents spending. There was no plan to deal with them.

2)Attacking Afghanistan with cruse missles. No follow up, no success. A classic wag the dog move.

3)Attacking Kosovo. No reason for it. Where are the mass graves? the 100,000 dead? No justifcation. At less Iraq has Saddam. The left is so hypocritical.

4) What about the Chinaese spys stealing nuclear secerts? Should we give Clinton a pass on this one?

5)No Plan for Iraq, Clinton had no plan and took no action as corruption(U.N. oil for food)ran rampated.
Were we going to fly missions over the no fly zones forever? lets face it this was one long war with a ten year brake in the middle.

6)lets talk about the economy.
the business cycle was slowing down in 2000.No one person can stop it. and thus it was on the up swing before that and only politians can stop that.

Tax increase do not help the economy and some time do not increase tax revenue. Clinton left us with tax increase that would sap strenght from the economy. and that is what was happening when he left. Then 9/11, tax cuts and recovery.


These are a few failures of Clinton and none of them are about sex.

What great thing did he accomplish? What great risk did he take?

the answer is none and that is why he will not be remember in history.

Posted by: Steve at September 19, 2005 10:54 AM
Comment #81415

Rob,

You make aa good point when you state: “The lesson here? Quit attacking the idiot, and start working on your plan for America!” Well, Rob, I’m trying in my hopelessly ineffective way…by writing letters to my local paper, participating in blogs like this, contacting my representatives in Congress, emailing Howard Dean and giving him an earful…but to no avail. What else can I do? I am not an elected official, and therefore have no voice. So how can “my plan” or “your plan” ever be taken seriously when it’s nearly impossible for ordinary citizens like us to be heard? Believe me, I’m trying, but our elected officials are the ones who can really stop the bullshit and start trying to fix this country…and I am writing to them, asking them to do just that. So please don’t blame me for not having a plan when I am trying to goad them to develop one.

When I stated that we citizens should try to hold Bush accountable because he lacks that capacity himself, you responded with: “How do you expect to ‘hold him accountable’? Do you think the Republican Congress is going to hold him accountable? Or the right-wing judiciary? The voters won’t have the chance to hold him accountable again, so you can’t hang your hopes there.”

Damn, Rob. Then why do anything? As I stated earlier, I’m doing what I can to be heard, yet you fault me for not having a “plan” for America. I write letters to the editors of the Washington Post, I contact my Congressional representatives, I do this, I do that…and then you say I don’t have a chance in hell of being heard because NO ONE will hold Bush accountable on anything. So why do anything? I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t…and that’s a damn shame.

IMHO, both parties have forgotten the one thing that matters most to the American People: the American People themselves. We want to be heard. We deserve to be heard. But all to often, I feel as though we have been forgotten…or at least supplanted by the “needs” and desires of corporate America and special interests. So please don’t fault me — or anyone — for trying to be heard. It’s what this country is supposed to stand for, and I am not going to just sit back and do nothing. As Albert Finney declared, I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore. If more people felt the same way, maybe something WOULD get done.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 19, 2005 11:02 AM
Comment #81419

Jack,

A brave and courageous post from someone on the blue side. Thanks.

Clinton had the capability to be one of our greatest presidents, but he pissed it away. I was, and still am, furious with him for that. But what really angered me was that the Republican party stooped to investigating a president’s sex life when they found that they couldn’t bring him down any other way.

Furthermore, IMO the Republicans hijacked the national agenda at a time when the Clinton administration itself was realizing what a growing threat terrorism was. The Republicans prevented the Clinton administration from acheiving ANYTHING in that regard. Their prurient preoccupation with the Presidential penis prevented prudent policies to prevent terrorism.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 19, 2005 11:34 AM
Comment #81424

Elliotbay, if Clinton wanted to do something about terrorism he had the power as president to do so no matter what the Republicans were saying about him.

The fact that he did nothing has nothing to do with “the national agenda”—it has to do with Clinton’s essential poll-chasing spinelessness and lack of vision.

You might be right in explaining the reasons for his paralysis—he was so distracted by his sexual escepades and his efforts to cover them up, that he sat back and did nothing after the Cole bombing and Africa bombings. If you are right—that Clinton knew of terrorists threats but made his personal struggles his greatest priority—then he was totally and criminaly unfit for offense.

If Clinton couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time, that’s his failing and nobody else’s.

Posted by: sanger at September 19, 2005 12:00 PM
Comment #81425

I meant “totally and criminally unfit for office.”

Posted by: sanger at September 19, 2005 12:01 PM
Comment #81429

What Magoo said. Both posts.

Jack,
It kills me how you Republican’s find it okay to show a little approval about a Democrat when they are finally out of office, but never before. You’re not the only one to do this. I’ve got several Republican friends who have been doing the same thing lately, even though while the man was in office they never let up once on their scathing attacks.

“Monika was certainly that classic case of sexual harassment by their standards. They never cared whether or not the woman said yes or no.”

This is total crap. Monica was absolutely the furthest thing from a classic case of sexual harrasment — and we know this with certainty because of Starr’s disgusting report that came out during the whole expensive and unnecessary impeachment of the president. Indeed, from that report we learned that Monica not only said yes, she initiated their affair by lifting her skirt to show Clinton her thong. It is for this reason that women’s groups didn’t react with outrage. It was consensual sex — and feminists don’t have a problem with that.

jbod:
“I find is that many on the left who claim to be non-partisan can�t find a single thing about Bush�not a SINGLE THING�that they like.”

Well, I don’t claim to be non-partisan, but this statement is true of me. There really isn’t a single thing W has done that I’ve liked. I couldn’t however, have said the same thing about his father, nor could I say such a thing about other Republican’s — such as McCain for instance.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 19, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #81434

Adrienne:

I think you might find yourself guilty of what you accused Jack of. You can talk about those NOT in office as being okay, but the guy IN office is not okay.

No one admits to being partisan, but many are. For that matter, most people think their viewpoints are middle of the road or mainstream. My brother is pro abortion, pro gun control, anti death penalty, pro gay marriage etc….and claims to be just barely to the left of center. He is a lot of things, but just barely left of center is not one of them. But since most of his friends and acquaintances agree with him, he feels he is in the mainstream.

Adrienne, you cannot even view the fact that the economy has improved over the past couple years as a good thing. Why not? The economy has had a number of severe hits, yet it is currrently improving. And still you cant find it within you to give credit to the current administration. I’m not saying the economy is where it should be, or that perhaps it could have been handled differently—-I’m simply stating the fact that it is improving, and you won’t even give credit for that.

I’d suggest you look within to understand why you cant give credit for a good thing. It might illuminate your hatred for Bush.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 19, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #81435
You guys coined the term “flip-flopper” for Clinton.

AP, actually the Republicans coined this for Carter in ‘76. I didn’t realize this until I saw an old Saturday Night Live skit where “Ford” was calling “Carter” a flip-flopper. Same old crap.

Posted by: Burt at September 19, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #81436

Adrienne

I didn’t blog at the time, but I never went after Clinton for Monika at the time, except in the Jay Leno joke style. It was funny. I am not a Clinton basher. If you check though all my posts, I doubt if you will find an example of an unnuanced Clinton bash.

I am glad about the fall of the sexual harassment golem. It was way over blown in the first place. But it was not a complete fabrication. Think about what you just wrote:

“[She] not only said yes, she initiated their affair by lifting her skirt to show [him] her thong …. It was consensual sex”

I don’t doubt that is true. But imagine the court case where a fifty something CEO is using that defense when he is accused by a twenty something subordinate. Or maybe the twenty something’s colleagues accuse him of favoring her for non-business reasons.

Sexual harassment is a problem in the workplace. If we start making it okay for a boss to have sex with his subordinate, when she asks for it, we will have nothing but trouble. I don’t say this for “moral” or even for “civil rights” reasons. It is just very bad management.

Posted by: jack at September 19, 2005 1:18 PM
Comment #81442

AP,

C’mon, Rob. That’s just ridiculous. You guys coined the term “flip-flopper” for Clinton. He was the guy the right accused of not standing for anything, just following the polls.

I’m not sure who “you guys” are… I’m a left-leaning independent myself. I always find it funny how the left calls me right-wing and the right calls me left-wing.

And I never claimed that Kerry was a flip-flopper. I considered it to be an unfair label when it was applied, and I still do.

Instead, I claimed that Kerry lacked direction. He spent his energies on telling us what Bush did wrong, instead of on telling us what he would do right. I’ll concede that Kerry probably had a plan for America — he just didn’t spend a lot of time talking about it.

I’d love to see a Democrat in the White House again. There are plenty of good, qualified people in the party. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be able to win the nomination. The Northeast dominates the party, but doesn’t represent the rest of the country.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 19, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #81444

jbod:
“I think you might find yourself guilty of what you accused Jack of. You can talk about those NOT in office as being okay, but the guy IN office is not okay.”

Uh, I mentioned McCain, didn’t I? Here, since you doubt my sincerity, let me name a couple more: Chaffee and Snow seem to have their heads screwed on pretty straight as well.

“No one admits to being partisan, but many are.”

Well, I freely admit that I am. I don’t like the feeling of trying to act like a phony. Better to be honest and upfront about it, IMO.

“For that matter, most people think their viewpoints are middle of the road or mainstream. My brother is pro abortion, pro gun control, anti death penalty, pro gay marriage etc�.and claims to be just barely to the left of center. He is a lot of things, but just barely left of center is not one of them. But since most of his friends and acquaintances agree with him, he feels he is in the mainstream.”

But all those things you mentioned are the “wedge issues”. Your brother may be very much in the center when it comes to many other political issues, so perhaps he knows better than you whether to classify himself as more in the mainstream, or not.

“Adrienne, you cannot even view the fact that the economy has improved over the past couple years as a good thing. Why not? The economy has had a number of severe hits, yet it is currrently improving. And still you cant find it within you to give credit to the current administration. I�m not saying the economy is where it should be, or that perhaps it could have been handled differently�-I�m simply stating the fact that it is improving, and you won�t even give credit for that.”

The economy is not improving for the middle class and the poor, therefore, it is not a success. It is that simple — and trickle down is a myth.

“It might illuminate your hatred for Bush.”

My hatred of Bush is because he’s a bad and dishonest leader in every way possible.

Jack:
“But imagine the court case where a fifty something CEO is using that defense when he is accused by a twenty something subordinate.”

He’d better have either some kind of proof, or several other witnesses to back up that defense if he wants to win though, right?

“Or maybe the twenty somethings colleagues accuse him of favoring her for non-business reasons.”

Again, where is the proof? Were other’s with a better track record and/or more experience passed up for the promotion or the raise? If so, they might have a good case.

“Sexual harassment is a problem in the workplace. If we start making it okay for a boss to have sex with his subordinate, when she asks for it, we will have nothing but trouble. I dont say this for moral or even for civil rights reasons. It is just very bad management.”

I agree, and yet I’m not so naive to think that love, lust and sex isn’t going to sometimes blossom in the workplace. Despite it being very bad management and (with people having sex while at work) more than a little disgusting, as long as the attraction is mutual and/or the sex consensual, I’m not one who would consider it an outrageous crime of gigantic proportions.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 19, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #81446

sanger,

You’re saying that Clinton should have been able to “do something about terrorism” even though the Republicans had majorities of both houses and opposed everything he did?

Given that logic, President Bush should be able to accomplish EVERYTHING he wants, because his party controls both houses. So what happened to Social Security “reform”? Where is Osama bin Laden? Where is Mullah Omar? Why are there MORE terrorist attacks worldwide than there were before the “war on terror” began?

Furthermore, it wasn’t “Clinton [who] couldn?t walk and chew gum at the same time”, it was Gerald Ford. ;-)

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 19, 2005 2:27 PM
Comment #81453

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I have to say this:

Sanger,
You excoriated the Clinton administration for doing “nothing after the Cole bombing”. For your information, the Cole bombing occurred on October 12, 2000, less than three months before the end of the Clinton administration. So you expected Clinton to find the leaders and bring them to justice in that period of time?

OK, that’s a little unreasonable, but more or less fair, I guess.

But the Bush Administration has had FOUR YEARS (that’s twelve times as long) to find OBL and bring him to justice, and have failed to do so. So if you villify Clinton for failing to accomplish something in less than three months with both houses of Congress against him, how would you characterize Bush’s failure to accomplish a similar objective in four years with both houses of Congress supporting him?

And remember that Bush administration was warned by the outgoing Clintonians that Al Qaeda was going to be their biggest challenge, yet they did nothing about it for OVER A YEAR AND A HALF. Nothing. How would you characterize that?

I’d characterize it as a fundamental failure by the Bush Administration to accomplish the most basic task of the federal government - namely, to protect its citizens. And for that alone, I think future historians will call this president the worst in the last century, and quite possibly the worst in our history.

I love my country and I grieve for it, because I think this preisdent is doing it real (and possibly irreparable) harm.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 19, 2005 3:12 PM
Comment #81454

Clinton will never be a great statesman. A statesmen actually needs to offer solutions to problems not act as a political and non-profit fundraiser. He surrounded himself with buffoons and idiots when he was President. He finally had to find a Republican to bail out his woeful economic policy. His charisma and riding the coat tails of Reaganomics are the only things that redeemed his sorry administration.

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #81457
yet they did nothing about it for OVER A YEAR AND A HALF. Nothing.

Um, year and a half? How do you figure?

Bush, innagurated in Jan. 2001. 9/11 less than 9 months later…

Btw, most of Al Qaeda, including the person who planned and coordinated 9/11 are in jail atm, which I think is a good thing. I would still like to see OBL behind bars as well but I think there is middle ground between absolute success and absolute failure in this arena…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 19, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #81468

Elliott:

Your time frames are flawed adn don’t make much sense, and to be honest, neither does your comparison. Let’s make another comparison—-the outcome of the two WTC bombings in NYC.

Clinton’s admin caught the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing relatively quickly, but he never did catch the masterminds behind it. Does that mean he accomplished nothing? Of course not.

Bush’s admin has dismantled Al Queda to a great extent but has not caught the two primary leaders, OBL and Mullah Omar. Does that mean he accomplished nothing? Of course not.

In WWII, we defeated the German army, but some of the top German war criminals got away. By your previous logic, we failed completely. How absurd.

At this point, it would be of great PR benefit to capture OBL, but I don’t think there would be a whole lot of strategic importance. That is, I don’t think OBL is in a capacity to really run the organization. But it could help deflate those trying to rebuild Al Queda, if they saw their leader in custody.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 19, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #81471

Rhinehold,
My apologies for being off by a year. Sheesh - I guess I really DO need bifocals.

JBOD,
I was responding to sanger’s statement that Clinton “did nothing” following the Cole attack. It was his logic I was questioning.

Posted by: ElliottBay at September 19, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #81488
At this point, it would be of great PR benefit to capture OBL, but I don’t think there would be a whole lot of strategic importance. That is, I don’t think OBL is in a capacity to really run the organization

JBOD, thanks for again pointing out how weak conservatives are on terrorism.

What possible evidence could you have to lead you to the conclusion above?

Posted by: Burt at September 19, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #81498

David R. Remer
May we never again have Congress and the Whitehouse controlled by a single party, ever, EVER!

I personally hope that neither will ever be controlled by either party again. But I reckon that just wishfull dreaming, unless the voters wakeup and get out of their ‘What can government do for me’ attitiude.

Clinton’s problem is he committed a felony and should have been removed from office. To bad they could’nt get the votes. I don’t know though but what he just might be a fun guy to hang out with. I mean he did have some interesting ideas on what to do with cigars.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 19, 2005 7:25 PM
Comment #81544

Burt:

Your conclusions don’t seem to have come from anything i have written so far, so perhaps they are preconceived.

On the other hand, my conclusions are based on the fact that Al Queda as a management structure has been vastly disrupted. Consider a company like General Motors having many of its branches destroyed, its management structure in shambles, yet the CEO still in office. Would he be as effective? Would he have anyone to carry out his plans? Would he be capable of running the company if much of his time was spent figuring out how to remain in hiding?

I don’t know OBL’s capacity to run Al Queda at this point, but its obvious that his organization has suffered great losses in manpower, leadership at various levels (other than the very top), freedom of movement, and financial resources. That means it has less capability than before, but does not mean there is no capability.

In that way, its relatively easy to conclude that OBL has less capacity to run his organization than before.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at September 20, 2005 8:33 AM
Comment #81578
On the other hand, my conclusions are based on the fact that Al Queda as a management structure has been vastly disrupted.

How so? They just claimed responsibility for the London bombings.

No, al Qaeda is alive and very well. They’re a classic 4GW organization.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 20, 2005 11:20 AM
Comment #81585

AP:

Does Al Queda possess the capability they had prior to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? By ANYONE’s definition of capability, they do not.

They do of course retain SOME capability, but its not as much.

My point has been that capturing OBL would not impact Al Queda all that much from a functional standpoint. It would be a great PR boon to the US, and specifically the Bush administration.

Thats the point.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 20, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #81592

Gore never said he “invented” the Internet. He worked very hard to make it a publicly available resource…

It never ceases to amaze me how gullible the no-minds are around here that keep on promoting the same old talking point lies.

Use your brain you dolt!

Posted by: Andrew at September 20, 2005 12:10 PM
Comment #81617

Jack, you posted;

“I did truly enjoy watching the womens groups swallow their pride.”

I didn’t know they had Bill and Monica on tape?

Posted by: Beagle at September 20, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #81643

Jack:
“I did truly enjoy watching the womens groups swallow their pride.”
Beagle:
“I didn’t know they had Bill and Monica on tape?”

Monica may be a “plus size”, but I don’t think she’s ever been large enough to actually qualify as a “women’s group”!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #81807

Part of me thinks “…Legacy…” and part of me thinks that he’s out to do as much good as he can while he’s able to do so. Someone pointed out that some of our most moral leaders are those who have hit “rock-bottom” in that department and are trying to make up for it, at least to themselves if not to everyone else. So if it’s the latter, all the best, Bill. If the former, well, then that’s par for the course.

Posted by: Guest at September 21, 2005 5:19 PM
Comment #81847

legacy, legacy, legacy … and keeping the wife front and center for ‘08. also: never underestimate bill’s constant, irresistible desire for exposure (public exposure … er, that is, MEDIA exposure), which is surely some weird psychological thing.

now then, excuse me whilst i heave chunks into the trashcan after wading thru this entire comical, and often frightening, blog.

Posted by: shabazz at September 21, 2005 9:40 PM
Comment #81932
Does Al Queda possess the capability they had prior to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yes JBOD. They do, and then some. They’re larger, better organized as a network, they operate in more than 60 countries, and they’ve replaced the training camps we destroyed in Afghanistan with training camps in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines — and Idaho, for all we know.

I agree with you about the value of getting bin Laden, but to say al Qaeda has been vastly disrupted is to ignore reality.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 22, 2005 9:51 AM
Post a comment