Clinton's two biggest accomplishments:

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Seems like Clinton's military did wonderfully in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Bush's military is the one hung up in in Iraq.

Clinton inherited the highly trained, well equipped and extremely professional volunteer military that faced down the Soviet threat during the Cold War and decisively won the first Gulf War...with that military, Clinton:
- Overextended and demoralized it with extended deployments to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo that were of no strategic interest to the United States.
- Bloodied our most elite and highly trained soldiers in Somalia
- Invested significantly in Air Force "smart bomb" solutions as an alternative to placing soldiers on the ground, which became his strategic vision for dealing with Saddam Hussein
- Failed to envision a post Cold War force structure for the military, and sacked those military leaders that proposed significant expenditures for transforming our military into a lighter and more lethal force.

1. Oh and our military isn't completely demoralized and overexteneded in a lying occupation of another country?!?! No strategic interest? Probably not, but it was a humane thing to do. How many Americans died in Kosovo btw?
2. Clinton openly admitted that Somalia was a mistake and pulled them out. Better than Bushy-boy will ever do.
3. Hmm.. yeah, full-scale invasion was MUCH better. :roll:
4. Sorry if Bill didn't envision invading and occupying other large nations and fighting a prolonged "insurgency" all for the sake of corporate profit-making.

 

[GTKeeper]

I know most of you on these boards are one sided in terms of political affiliation. You guys either love libs, or love reps.

Looking at what concerns people the most (money) Clinton did a good job in balancing the budget.

Regardless of whether it was a democratic/republican/whatever congress... the budget got balanced. I don't think we will see a balanced budget again.


As for terrorism, Clinton should have done more. But then again, it took 9/11 for us to wake up and realize that our intelligence agencies are very 'good old boyish' and more like corporations than institutions meant to protect our country.

We know that there were repots of people training in Boeing simulators and paying cash, training at the Venice airport in FL. For whatever reason, we didn't take those things seriously or at least seriously enough.

I think what made Clinton appealing to middle america (remember middle america chooses the president) is the fact that he made it to the top on his own. No silver spoon up his a$$ just hard work and hard circumstances (alcoholic father or stepfather I think and a druggie mom).

That is also why I think Bush Sr. was a good prez also. He came from the CIA and knew of more things than most people realize. The only reason he lost is because he raised taxes when he said he wouldn't. But then again, how else was he going to pay for desert storm? I totally supported his tax raise. If you spend more money than you have, you have to make up for it somewhere.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
I know most of you on these boards are one sided in terms of political affiliation. You guys either love libs, or love reps.

Looking at what concerns people the most (money) Clinton did a good job in balancing the budget.

Regardless of whether it was a democratic/republican/whatever congress... the budget got balanced. I don't think we will see a balanced budget again.


As for terrorism, Clinton should have done more. But then again, it took 9/11 for us to wake up and realize that our intelligence agencies are very 'good old boyish' and more like corporations than institutions meant to protect our country.

We know that there were repots of people training in Boeing simulators and paying cash, training at the Venice airport in FL. For whatever reason, we didn't take those things seriously or at least seriously enough.

I think what made Clinton appealing to middle america (remember middle america chooses the president) is the fact that he made it to the top on his own. No silver spoon up his a$$ just hard work and hard circumstances (alcoholic father or stepfather I think and a druggie mom).

That is also why I think Bush Sr. was a good prez also. He came from the CIA and knew of more things than most people realize. The only reason he lost is because he raised taxes when he said he wouldn't. But then again, how else was he going to pay for desert storm? I totally supported his tax raise. If you spend more money than you have, you have to make up for it somewhere.

Look at my link above on Clinton and terrorism.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Even if this were true, I think most people prefer someone who doesn't do anything compared to a destructive maniac.

Given Clinton's handling of Somalia and the Balkans, it leaves little doubt that had 9/11 occurred on his watch, Clinton was just as capable at committing a foreign policy in response to the Al Quaida threat.

NO BLOOD FOR MONICA! THAT'S ALL I HEARD AFTER HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WANTED TO GO AFTER BIN LADEN RIGHT AFTER THE EMBASSY ATTACK! IT'S A "WAG THE DOG"! (NOT YELLING JUST CAPITALIZING TO MAKE COMMENTS STAND OUT)

I like how Clinton is blamed for 9/11, yet there is not a mention of the blame that belongs to the man who was the actual president during the attack. Seems like maybe he's somewhat responsible, don't you think?

It is a bit misdirected to blame any Preisdent or individual alone for 9/11...bureaucracy within our intelligence communities and an uneassy transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations were just two of numerous factors that allowed 9/11 to happen.

RICHARD CLARKE WAS THE ANTI-TERRORISM HOLDOVER BETWEEN BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS. HE WAS BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE HIS WARNINGS SERIOUSLY. THEY DIDN'T AND 3000 PEOPLE DIED. SORRY, CAN'T PIN THIS ON BILL.

but he did turn the reputation of the conservative party into international gangsters and terrorists, and jfk was helping a nato ally out by training on a limited scale as the french backed out, it was lbj and nixon that blew it into a full scale conflict.

America's observer status in Vietnam began under Eisenhower...Kennedy misunderstood the nuances of wars on the periphery, and certainly did nothing to prevent the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam.

You also fail to mention Bay of Pigs, another Kennedy foreign policy "victory."

AND HE WENT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND APOLOGIZED FOR THAT ACTION. HMM... WHERE'S BUSH'S PRESS CONFERENCE FOR HIS ACTIONS?
The development and training of black ops units, particularly those involved in the "nation building" missions in Latin America, was also was a product of the Kennedy administration.

AND PUT TO PERFECTION BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, NERGOPONTE, GHWB, PERLE AND COMPANY.

The dems were assisinated one after another by rightwingnuts whenever they tried to put it to a end.

The brother Kennedy's were assasinated because of their father's ties to organized crime...the Kennedy fortune was made through bootlegging...you liberals bitch about wealthy Republicans, yet how is the Kennedy family any better...the Kennedy brothers have numerous political scandals split between them...any one of those scandals resulted in their assasination.

MAYBE THE BUSH FAMILY WILL BE ASSASSINATED BY THE FAMILY OF HOLOCAUST VICTIMS FOR THEIR FAMILY'S INVOLVEMENT WITH FUNDING THE NAZI WAR MACHINE IN THE 1930'S?(AGAIN, ONLY CAPITALIZED TO STAND OUT MY TEXT).

 

[Starbuck1975]

Oh and our military isn't completely demoralized and overexteneded in a lying occupation of another country?!?! No strategic interest? Probably not, but it was a humane thing to do. How many Americans died in Kosovo btw?

I never claimed that Bush was any better for our military...simply pointing out that Clinton was not exactly a foreign policy mastermind either...and body count is not the only dynamic that hurts morale...we may not be losing soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo, but extended deployments cause attrition in other ways, such as retention.

Clinton openly admitted that Somalia was a mistake and pulled them out. Better than Bushy-boy will ever do.

I am sure that is very comforting to the families of the soldiers that died there...ooops my bad...the funny thing is, the situation in Somalia required a more significant American military footprint...Clinton deployed light units to Somalia without armored support because he did not want to give the American people a perception of American military escalation...of course, not having adequate armored protection for the Somalia mission cost alot of our soldiers their lives, but that seems to be overlooked when people discuss the "Clinton legacy."

Hmm.. yeah, full-scale invasion was MUCH better.

Full scale invasion or arbitrary token bombing...neither solution demonstrates much strategic insight or long range planning.

Sorry if Bill didn't envision invading and occupying other large nations and fighting a prolonged "insurgency" all for the sake of corporate profit-making.

No, Bill should have envisioned a force structure designed to contend specifically with the very peacekeeping missions he deployed our troops to...the first Gulf War demonstrated that the military we designed to face off against the Soviets was simply too heavy and cumbersome for the types of missions that would emerge during the post Cold War era.

And we have been an occupation force within the Balkans for a decade now...for a man that was anti-war during the Vietnam era, Clinton certainly loved to flex military muscle.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Clinton's presidency was disasterous.

yeah disasterously high dry cleaning bill to clean a bit of jizz off a dress versus the current admininistration that is soaked in the blood of thousands worldwide...sure.

If Clinton hand't decimated the military, ignored global terrorism, and made us a laughing stock around the globe, perhaps the terrorits would have thought twice about attacking us on 9/11.

Rip, to put it rather bluntly, you are an idiot.

There is another forum that I post on that I debunked this crock of sh*t from the right. Here were the "Facts" as they listed them to prove their point (Note: you will probable know them by heart because they are right wing talking points about how Clinton cut the heart out of the military compared to what it was during Ronnie's heyday)

Here are some examples:
Military manning levels:
1986 - 2,169,000
1999 - 1,370,000
Army Active Divisions:
1986 - 18
2000 - 10
Army Reserve Divisions:
1986 - 10
2000 - 8
Active USAF Wings:
1986 - 26
2000 - 13
Reserve USAF Wings:
1986 - 13
2000 - 7.6
Navy Carriers:
1985 - 15
2000 - 12
Combat Ships:
1986 - 569
2000 - 314

Defense Spending:
1986 - $436.1Bn
2000 - $267.2Bn

Defense spending as Percentage of GNP:
1986 - approx. 6.2%
2000 - approx. 3.0%

Defense spending ad percentage of Federal Budget
1986 - 28%
2000 - 16%

Defense Spending vs. Total National Budget
1985 - $436.1 Bn______$1,432Bn
1999 - $282.6 Bn______$1,765Bn
SOURCE: http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/PeaceDividendorUnderfunding.html

But if you actually disect the numbers, which no one on the right either has or won't release the info IF they have, you get a whole different picture painted under those rose-colored, Republicans are strong Democrats are weak and hate the military rhetoric. Here's what my response was there and then in a later post the information that you would see backs up my thoughts if you weren't so party blind:

You are comparing information that is either intellectually dishonest or blatantly misleading in a Hannity/Rush kinda way.

How can you blame Clinton for cuts that took place prior to his being in office? You are talking about numbers at their highest (in 1995/1996) without showing what they were under the last two/three budgets of Reagan or the four budgets of Pappa Bush. There could have been major cuts in military spending in the last couple of Reagan budgets and there were HUGE cuts in Pappa's budgets. It, also, doesn't account for UNMANNED weapons and advanced systems that made older technology obselete. With advance technology, you usually need less staffing. You are trying to prove your case with bogus information.

The charts that are being referenced below are from HERE

If you look at the chart on page 2 of the report, you will notice that the spending cuts in defense began while Reagan was in office. They began in 1985 and declined at their steepest points between the years 1989 and 1994 where they leveled off. NOT A SINGLE Clinton budget cut in that time because he wasn't in office and his first budget didn't take effect until 1994.

If you take a look at the chart on page 6, you will see that defense spending as it relates to GNP has dropped under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton AND Shrub.

If you look at the graph on page 7, you will see that the LARGEST DROP IN DOLLARS SPENT on defense was, once again, by Bush Sr.

Someone please explain to me how the chart on page 11 makes any sense? How can they show the Bush Sr. spending plan for defense and compare it to the Clinton ACTUAL plan for FY's 1990, 1991 and 1992?

I covered the chart on page 13 that clearly displays that the majority of the cuts in staffing occured under Bush Sr.

The chart on page 14 (and the data that Advocate used in the initial post in this thread) are useless because it does not give a breakdown of each year. It is impossible to determine if those cuts in combat units occured under Bush Sr. or Clinton. From the evidence so far on all other items, guess which one I would assume had more cuts?!?

I can actually validate my above assumption using the information from the Washington Times article quoted on page 20. Below are the numbers that Advocate used to make his case in the original post once more:

Here they are with the numbers from 1993 inserted with them (Bush Sr.'s last defense budget):

Army Active Divisions:
1986 - 18
1993- 12
2000 - 10
Bush cut 1/3 of the Active divisions (18-12) while Clinton cut 1/6th (12-10).

Army Reserve Divisions:
1986 - 10
1993 - 8
2000 - 8
Once again, Bush made the cuts. Clinton made 0 cuts.

Active USAF Wings:
1986 - 26
1993 - 14
2000 - 13
Bush Sr. killed them again.

Reserve USAF Wings:
1986 - 13
1993 - 10
2000 - 7.6
This one is about a wash, but still leans more to Clinton making less cuts.


If you look at the Clinton promises that are listed on pages 31-32 and were made in his 1999 SOTU address, there are increases in military spending, salaries, more retirement benefits and new weapons systems.

If you look at the chart on page 33, you will see that he delivered on what he promised. There is an upward trend that starts in FY 2000 (he promised that his next budget would include the increases and they obviously did). The chart on page 34 confirms this same conclusion in regards to RDT&E spending. That is on the rise under Clinton also.

 

[Starbuck1975]

RICHARD CLARKE WAS THE ANTI-TERRORISM HOLDOVER BETWEEN BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS. HE WAS BEGGING AND PLEADING FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO TAKE HIS WARNINGS SERIOUSLY. THEY DIDN'T AND 3000 PEOPLE DIED. SORRY, CAN'T PIN THIS ON BILL

The Al Quaida threat emerged on Clinton's watch...I believe such accounts that the Bush Administration was largely unresponsive to Clarke's warnings, yet the planning, infilitration and training for the 9/11 suicide mission all happened on Clinton's watch.

Neither President received passing marks for their handling of the Al Quaida threat.

AND PUT TO PERFECTION BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, NERGOPONTE, GHWB, PERLE AND COMPANY.

Yes, Reagan utilized black ops extensively during the 1980s, and many of the problems facing America today are due to foreign policy blunders made during the Reagan years...yet you fail to recognize that Kennedy, a Democrat, set the groundwork and envisioned the use of black ops as a means for the President to shroud foreign policy engagements from the American public.

MAYBE THE BUSH FAMILY WILL BE ASSASSINATED BY THE FAMILY OF HOLOCAUST VICTIMS FOR THEIR FAMILY'S INVOLVEMENT WITH FUNDING THE NAZI WAR MACHINE IN THE 1930'S?(AGAIN, ONLY CAPITALIZED TO STAND OUT MY TEXT

So we have essentially established that the Bush and Kennedy families are simply different sides of the same corrupt coin...I find it fascinating though that you deflect my criticisms of Clinton and Kennedy to criticisms of Bush...as if Bush being a poor President somehow makes criticisms againt Kennedy and Clinton simply disappear...history will not be as kind to any of these Presidents.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I'm sorry, but to compare the family corruption and criminal activities of the Kennedy's and the Bush's is really just too funny.

Funding Nazi's <> Smuggling booze during Prohibition.

Now I don't excuse anything that Clinton did wrong or that Kennedy did wrong, but I am putting in some perspective as to how far and how high that "bar" has been set now with the current Presidential "dynasty".

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Welfare reform and balancing the budget were really accomplishments of the Republican Congress.

That is simply not correct. Both were accomplished with Clinton's leadership after the Republican Congress' grand strategy to ruin government completely and utterly failed.

What IS true is the Republican Congress wasted several years of America's time persecuting Clinton, which may very well have been a factor in our inattention to world affairs that ultimately kicked us hard on 9/11.

Several attempts by Clinton to deal with the threat were weakened by either real or implied threats to characterize any attempt he made, as "wag the dog" coverups.

And another thing Clinton had to deal with is the politization of the CIA and the military officer corp, which under Reagan became filled with people who just don't think they should have to serve under a Democratic president.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm sorry, but to compare the family corruption and criminal activities of the Kennedy's and the Bush's is really just too funny. Funding Nazi's <> Smuggling booze during Prohibition.

Because we all know that booze smuggling was an industry without casualties...both American dynasties have their fair share of scandals, and both families have the blood of the innocent on their hands.

It is not a question of comparison, because such corruption in any of its manifestations is simply unacceptable...getting into a debate over which dynasty is "worse" becomes irrelevant if you accept the notion that neither family is innocent.

 

[Infohawk]

1. he started an optional war (iraq war)
2. us citizens have had their constitutional rights threatened and denied repeatedly under his watch
3. the us government has committed torture under his watch


Thread locked due to vapid stupidity.

Given the above Bush thread's locking, shouldn't this one follow?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I like how Clinton is blamed for 9/11, yet there is not a mention of the blame that belongs to the man who was the actual president during the attack. Seems like maybe he's somewhat responsible, don't you think?

yup. bush was in office longer before his terror attack to boot. clinton practically just got in when he got hit. and the perpetrators are in jail for clintons attack obl is still in the wind

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Seems like Clinton's military did wonderfully in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Bush's military is the one hung up in in Iraq.

Clinton inherited the highly trained, well equipped and extremely professional volunteer military that faced down the Soviet threat during the Cold War and decisively won the first Gulf War...with that military, Clinton:
- Overextended and demoralized it with extended deployments to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo that were of no strategic interest to the United States.
- Bloodied our most elite and highly trained soldiers in Somalia
- Invested significantly in Air Force "smart bomb" solutions as an alternative to placing soldiers on the ground, which became his strategic vision for dealing with Saddam Hussein
- Failed to envision a post Cold War force structure for the military, and sacked those military leaders that proposed significant expenditures for transforming our military into a lighter and more lethal force.

ugh no. look at my sig. the cuts in the military started under reagan. the cutting continued under bush 1. cheney even approved so don't pull that sh*t. the smart weapons and missles were developed funded built and stockpiled under clinton and proved rather useful in afganistan and gulf 2. gulf 1 had very few smart weapons, vast majority was dumb bombs. stop believing the repubs on the military. bush's statements about units not ready for duty were proved to be false. his actions in not immediatly vastly increasing funding after election prove he was lying or incompetent. as for sacking people with vision for a future lighter fighting force. i believe that was bush's doing. stuff like the predator/stryker were clintons. as for the smart bombs dealing with saddam, its not as if the repubs cared about fighting terror then, they didn't listen to clintons dire warnings about saddam, they cared about a girl named monica more than our national security.

 

[Starbuck1975]

the cuts in the military started under reagan. the cutting continued under bush 1. cheney even approved so don't pull that sh*t.

Yes they did, but a President must weigh cutbacks to military personnel versus deployment commitments...we were not deployed to the Balkans under Reagan or Bush, so the cutbacks first initiated by Cheney did not envision long term commitments to a babysitting mission...Clinton continued the cutback plan initiated by Cheney, but with the added bonus of increasing deployment commitments of the military...poor strategic understanding of the post Cold War world on Clinton's part.

the smart weapons and missles were developed funded built and stockpiled under clinton and proved rather useful in afganistan and gulf 2

Yes, but you still have to commit boots to the ground to win any war, and Clinton failed to take the initiative in transforming the military to the types of missions that strategic analysts predicted for the military...he very much bought into the notion that America could win wars with air power alone...and BTW, smart weapons and UAVs were already in development prior to Clinton taking office for his first term.

stop believing the repubs on the military. bush's statements about units not ready for duty were proved to be false

I don't have to believe anyone...I witnessed it first hand, as the majority of my active duty service was under Clinton.

as for sacking people with vision for a future lighter fighting force. i believe that was bush's doing.

David Grange, currently a military analyst for CNN, was the commander of 1st ID under Clinton...he was the first commanding officer to report his division unfit for its wartime mission due to commitments in the Balkans...he was "retired" shortly after that, and he was one of the finest and most respected commanding officers in the Army at the time.

stuff like the predator/stryker were clintons

Actually they were GEN Shinseky's, who envisioned a total transformation of the U.S.Army to deal with insurgency and other contingencies for a post Cold War world.

they didn't listen to clintons dire warnings about saddam, they cared about a girl named monica more than our national security.

Wait, Saddam was a threat...I thought the anti-Bush crowd was sticking to the argument that Saddam was never a threat?

 

[0roo0roo]

Yes they did, but a President must weigh cutbacks to military personnel versus deployment commitments...we were not deployed to the Balkans under Reagan or Bush, so the cutbacks first initiated by Cheney did not envision long term commitments to a babysitting mission...Clinton continued the cutback plan initiated by Cheney, but with the added bonus of increasing deployment commitments of the military...poor strategic understanding of the post Cold War world on Clinton's part.

so you are saying the trend was to cut back the military to uselessness by all presidents.

Yes, but you still have to commit boots to the ground to win any war, and Clinton failed to take the initiative in transforming the military to the types of missions that strategic analysts predicted for the military...he very much bought into the notion that America could win wars with air power alone...and BTW, smart weapons and UAVs were already in development prior to Clinton taking office for his first term.

he didn't commit boots for political reasons. not even the republicans would support it.

I don't have to believe anyone...I witnessed it first hand, as the majority of my active duty service was under Clinton.

the statements were still factually false.

Actually they were GEN Shinseky's, who envisioned a total transformation of the U.S.Army to deal with insurgency and other contingencies for a post Cold War world.

and he was not sacked by clinton. clinton gets the credit, thats how it works.

Wait, Saddam was a threat...I thought the anti-Bush crowd was sticking to the argument that Saddam was never a threat?

how is this helping you? fact is republicans put political witch hunts over national security. that or they are full of sh*t.

 

[Starbuck1975]

so you are saying the trend was to cut back the military to uselessness by all presidents.

I am saying that neither Bush Sr. nor Clinton had a strategic vision for American military structure in the post Cold War era, and that the Clinton Administration repeatedly silenced those general officers that raised this issue...Grange and Shinseky were the most vocal at the time, and their careers were for all intents and purposes ended.

he didn't commit boots for political reasons. not even the republicans would support it.

Clinton had no problem committing troops to the ground in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia...in the case of Kosovo, we went in under the premise of false intelligence that Serbia was committing genocide against Kosovar Albanians...we never did find the mass graves that Clinton used as the justification for our going into Kosovo, and we are still committed to that deployment...or is it permissable for a President to deploy soldiers under a false pretense so long as no one is killed? And for the record, just like Iraq, we did not go into the Balkans with purient interests...it was with the clear strategic objective of establishing American bases in former Soviet dominated regions as a check on the still unstable Russia.

the statements were still factually false.

You have yet to provide evidence or commentary to back this assertion, or should I simply take your word for it.

and he was not sacked by clinton. clinton gets the credit, thats how it works.

Clinton gets the credit for failing to listen to the better judgement of well respected and experienced officers...Grange and Shinseky were of the same caliber as Clarke, yet Clarke's career was largely uninterupted because he never challenged Clinton. I suppose you can give credit for the fielding of technologies that were contracted and in development prior to his administration.

how is this helping you? fact is republicans put political witch hunts over national security. that or they are full of sh*t.

It is helping me in pointing out the hypocracy of the Democrats with regard to Saddam...you cannot have politicians, on record I might add, point out that Saddam is a threat...and then take a complete opposite stance when it is politically convenient to do so...one day you will learn that both parties are full of shit...the Republicans do not have a monopoly on partisan nonsense...not by a long shot.

 

[Jadow]

baggin the chick from Highlander is definitely his #1 accomplishment

 

[0roo0roo]

is that a joke? i don't get it

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
And? The point of this is?

Clinton is in the news again so it seemed like a good time to rehash his worthless presidency.

The Survivor

haha. jealous.