How Can President Bush possibly lose in November?

[beer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Drphibes
care to explain further cad.

About what? This has been discussed in multiple other threads. If you don't understand how there really wasn't a "surplus" then you need to read and educate yourself on how the gov't balance sheets work(or rather play a game of "hide the money")

Bowfinger even said this: "That's one of those technically-true answers that's intended to divert the discussion. By GAAP standards, there was never a surplus."
Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets just say that if you, I, or any business tried to use the gov't accounting methods we wouldn't get very far

CkG

Do me a favor and please elaborate. Or provided generally supportive links. I am interested in this and I have never heard of this before.

And if 1997 was a deficit, and appeared as a surplus...what does FY2004 count as? It's already a 500bil defecit 'by government accounting practices' which are deceptively high as you seem to think.
:Q

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Drphibes
care to explain further cad.

About what? This has been discussed in multiple other threads. If you don't understand how there really wasn't a "surplus" then you need to read and educate yourself on how the gov't balance sheets work(or rather play a game of "hide the money")

Bowfinger even said this: "That's one of those technically-true answers that's intended to divert the discussion. By GAAP standards, there was never a surplus."
Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets just say that if you, I, or any business tried to use the gov't accounting methods we wouldn't get very far

CkG

Word games. Yes, this has been discussed before, it was a Surplus.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, there was a Surplus not too long ago with the same Social Programs in place. Nice try.

if you think so ,,the economy was failing before clinton ever got out of office

so lets see clinton got a free ride on the dot.com boom ,,and lets not forget ,,gore invented the internet ,,so that made it easier for clinton

clinton made a suplus by cutting down our armed service ,,the one reason why we are probably short of manpower in iraq ,,so we had to send the reserves ,,and oh yea ,,when he cut down the military ,,he also cut back on the cia ,,and yes that is a bill that john kerry voted for ,,and that probably made it harder for them to get the information that we needed

if the cia knew in 98 that there was a threat of some one going to use our own planes against us ,,why didn't clinton implement his own plan??was he too busy?why didn't clinton do any thing about the terrorists attacking us on our soil??why didn't he keep iraq in line??would all of that affected his so called try for peace with palistine and israel?

when you put a weak president in office you end up with a weak country,,clinton done nothing to keep this country strong ,,he just kept on making it weaker,,and if kerry got in office he would do the same ,,when will we learn ??

how about his work between palistine and israel for a peace agreement ?? they had a plan that was going to cost the us 100 billion ,,and israel was in a hurry to meet the deadline until it was suicide bombed several times

so lets see can bush lose in 2004??i doubt it ,,not against kerry ,,that is the person that bush picked to run against

 

[CADsortaGUY]

A little education for you all from Walter Williams - "The budget surplus hoax"

Enjoy.

CkG

Edit - if you really want to learn something I suggest you take time to read more from 'Ol Walt(there is a link at the bottom of it to see more of his writings) . He knows his stuff

 

[rickn]

another 4yrs of Bush, the only phrase I can think of is "God Save America" cuz we gonna need it. Bush really isn't the thinker of his administration, he just surrounded himself with shrewd and deplorable people.

And as a registered republican, it will be again my great priveledge to vote for yet another Democrat for president (Clinton vs Bush Sr there was not contest)

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer
Do me a favor and please elaborate. Or provided generally supportive links. I am interested in this and I have never heard of this before.

And if 1997 was a deficit, and appeared as a surplus...what does FY2004 count as? It's already a 500bil defecit 'by government accounting practices' which are deceptively high as you seem to think.

it is all done in book keeping ,,or maybe like companies like enron did is cook the books

you show a profit for the year while you are almost 7 trilllion dollars in debt from previous years ,,where did clinton cut to save money??places like our military ,,cia ,,cutting out navy size down more then half ,,any one can show a profit doing those things ,,so what did clinton do to protect us??nothing except maybe had his men remove the "W" key from the key boards ,,cross telephone lines ,,some one should have been put in jail

so lets see what bush done to put us in debt ,,he went into two wars that we won easily ,,and also won respect from other countries that was not recieving bribes from iraq for oil ,,you remember like france ,or russia ,and others

so there was no way that they was going to allow a war ,,or to stop suddam after all saddam still thought that he had wmd's ,,wmd's hard to find??so was saddams small airforce that was buried in the sand

 

[beer]

CAD -

Congress has been doing that with social security since it's inception. If that's the case you can add another 200 billion to bush's already 500 billion deficit. I can't believe you believe this sh!t applied only to Clinton and that Bush is somehow changing the way that congress does accounting.

Also the US Treasury doesn't have to "hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims" as the article says. You can't compare nation debt to personal or corporate debt in that respect. It is backed by the GDP. The United States isn't going to go bankrupt. And the reason that companies have to have reserves is because they can go bankrupt.

This is first semester high school economics level here. Please come back with something more substantive. Or refute my 20-odd treatise on why bush sucks.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: beer
Do me a favor and please elaborate. Or provided generally supportive links. I am interested in this and I have never heard of this before.

And if 1997 was a deficit, and appeared as a surplus...what does FY2004 count as? It's already a 500bil defecit 'by government accounting practices' which are deceptively high as you seem to think.

it is all done in book keeping ,,or maybe like companies like enron did is cook the books

you show a profit for the year while you are almost 7 trilllion dollars in debt from previous years ,,where did clinton cut to save money??places like our military ,,cia ,,cutting out navy size down more then half ,,any one can show a profit doing those things ,,so what did clinton do to protect us??nothing except maybe had his men remove the "W" key from the key boards ,,cross telephone lines ,,some one should have been put in jail

so lets see what bush done to put us in debt ,,he went into two wars that we won easily ,,and also won respect from other countries that was not recieving bribes from iraq for oil ,,you remember like france ,or russia ,and others

so there was no way that they was going to allow a war ,,or to stop suddam after all saddam still thought that he had wmd's ,,wmd's hard to find??so was saddams small airforce that was buried in the sand

You are trolling. Please leave. Take economics 101 and seperate deficit from debt. The national DEBT has been almost entirely the work of REAGAN and BUSH! Clinton contributed to it in his early years, but 80% of the debt as it stands now was incurred during the reagan years and the Bush Sr., Bush Jr. years. Now our third largest national expediture is just interest on the national debt. And if you think we won respect or that the war easily, please provide that we have 'won' Gulf War II. Or, for that matter, that we have established stability in afghanistan. We have removed Saddam and that is about it, considering that the people now are worse off economically and less safe than under Saddam.

Since you are a fscking troll, put up or shut up. You are also a fscking moron on top of everything else.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: rickn
another 4yrs of Bush, the only phrase I can think of is "God Save America" cuz we gonna need it. Bush really isn't the thinker of his administration, he just surrounded himself with shrewd and deplorable people.

And as a registered republican, it will be again my great priveledge to vote for yet another Democrat for president (Clinton vs Bush Sr there was not contest)

it looks like if you vote for a democrat ,,you will be voting for the same man that help reduce our military ,,our navy ,,and our cia ,,we can't stand four years of that

kerry also wants to put our armed service men under the orders of the UN ,,how do you think that is going to work??especially if you have corrupt people running the UN?

bush has who he wants to run against ,,the one with the biggest record to find fault with

if john edwards was to have won i would have voted for him ,,just because he is from my stae ,,and i like the way he handled himslf in the debates ,,he was great this sunday

kerry don't stand a chance and don't be surprised if the democrats don't replace him before the election if they see that he is going to lose bad ,,just watch and see ,,they have not done it on a president yet ,,but if i remember they done it two years ago on a senator that was going to lose ,,they hand picked some one to run ,,didn't even use the one who was running against him in the primaries ,,but then again we already know that when things don't go their way ,,they cheat

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: beer
CAD -

Congress has been doing that with social security since it's inception. If that's the case you can add another 200 billion to bush's already 500 billion deficit. I can't believe you believe this sh!t applied only to Clinton and that Bush is somehow changing the way that congress does accounting.

Also the US Treasury doesn't have to "hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims" as the article says. You can't compare nation debt to personal or corporate debt in that respect. It is backed by the GDP. The United States isn't going to go bankrupt. And the reason that companies have to have reserves is because they can go bankrupt.

This is first semester high school economics level here. Please come back with something more substantive. Or refute my 20-odd treatise on why bush sucks.

UMM - I Never stated that Bush was doing anything differently. What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD. This has nothing to do with economics - this is simple math...or it should be and is for everyone else but the gov't. Seems you need to take an accouting class - you know the one you take as a freshman in highschool.
BTW here is a link incase you are wondering who Walter Williams is.

CkG

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: rickn
another 4yrs of Bush, the only phrase I can think of is "God Save America" cuz we gonna need it. Bush really isn't the thinker of his administration, he just surrounded himself with shrewd and deplorable people.

And as a registered republican, it will be again my great priveledge to vote for yet another Democrat for president (Clinton vs Bush Sr there was not contest)

it looks like if you vote for a democrat ,,you will be voting for the same man that help reduce our military ,,our navy ,,and our cia ,,we can't stand four years of that

kerry also wants to put our armed service men under the orders of the UN ,,how do you think that is going to work??especially if you have corrupt people running the UN?

bush has who he wants to run against ,,the one with the biggest record to find fault with

if john edwards was to have won i would have voted for him ,,just because he is from my stae ,,and i like the way he handled himslf in the debates ,,he was great this sunday

kerry don't stand a chance and don't be surprised if the democrats don't replace him before the election if they see that he is going to lose bad ,,just watch and see ,,they have not done it on a president yet ,,but if i remember they done it two years ago on a senator that was going to lose ,,they hand picked some one to run ,,didn't even use the one who was running against him in the primaries ,,but then again we already know that when things don't go their way ,,they cheat

I'm glad you epitomize everything of a typical bush supporter. You are clueless, you think that the US can be run on a policy of exceptionalism and you think the rest of the world is somehow impressed with our unilateralism. You think that every other country in the world is run by complete morons and has no clue on how to act in the international arena and that American foreign policy is hands down, the best, and that the UN, NATO, EU, and every other military and economic bloc is nonsensical. Every other government is just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and we are the only righteous force in the universe. You assume that the paradigm of american achievement is overwhelming force and that the rest of the world should bow to the great united states military.

In fact, I hope you vote for Bush. One more asshat here for me to make fun of when the party of 'Anyone But Bush' wins in November.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: beer
CAD -

Congress has been doing that with social security since it's inception. If that's the case you can add another 200 billion to bush's already 500 billion deficit. I can't believe you believe this sh!t applied only to Clinton and that Bush is somehow changing the way that congress does accounting.

Also the US Treasury doesn't have to "hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims" as the article says. You can't compare nation debt to personal or corporate debt in that respect. It is backed by the GDP. The United States isn't going to go bankrupt. And the reason that companies have to have reserves is because they can go bankrupt.

This is first semester high school economics level here. Please come back with something more substantive. Or refute my 20-odd treatise on why bush sucks.

UMM - I Never stated that Bush was doing anything differently. What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD. This has nothing to do with economics - this is simple math...or it should be and is for everyone else but the gov't. Seems you need to take an accouting class - you know the one you take as a freshman in highschool.
BTW here is a link incase you are wondering who Walter Williams is.

CkG

So instead of: Clinton +200 million, GWB -500 billion

under 'correct' accounting principles, we now have

Clinton: -200 million, GWB -500,400,000,000.

What's your point?

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer

You are trolling. Please leave. Take economics 101 and seperate deficit from debt. The national DEBT has been almost entirely the work of REAGAN and BUSH! Clinton contributed to it in his early years, but 80% of the debt as it stands now was incurred during the reagan years and the Bush Sr., Bush Jr. years. Now our third largest national expediture is just interest on the national debt. And if you think we won respect or that the war easily, please provide that we have 'won' Gulf War II. Or, for that matter, that we have established stability in afghanistan. We have removed Saddam and that is about it, considering that the people now are worse off economically and less safe than under Saddam.

Since you are a fscking troll, put up or shut up. You are also a fscking moron on top of everything else.

wow ain't you a bright one ,,take your own lesson and finish school and then come back with some content other then cheerleading

maybe you would like bush to tighten up things like hoover did and bring back 25% unemployment ,,we are suppose to learn from our mistakes ,but you have not learned any thing

your personal attack shows nothing more then how low you will go

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Ghostt
]wow ain't you a bright one ,,take your own lesson and finish school and then come back with some content other then cheerleading

maybe you would like bush to tighten up things like hoover did and bring back 25% unemployment ,,we are suppose to learn from our mistakes ,but you have not learned any thing

your personal attack shows nothing more then how low you will go

20 posts ago I have typed a rebuttal to my original 20 reasons why bush sucks. If you think you are superior to me then take the time and set out why, on an individual basis, I was wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: beer
CAD -

Congress has been doing that with social security since it's inception. If that's the case you can add another 200 billion to bush's already 500 billion deficit. I can't believe you believe this sh!t applied only to Clinton and that Bush is somehow changing the way that congress does accounting.

Also the US Treasury doesn't have to "hold actuarially based reserves to cover those claims" as the article says. You can't compare nation debt to personal or corporate debt in that respect. It is backed by the GDP. The United States isn't going to go bankrupt. And the reason that companies have to have reserves is because they can go bankrupt.

This is first semester high school economics level here. Please come back with something more substantive. Or refute my 20-odd treatise on why bush sucks.

UMM - I Never stated that Bush was doing anything differently. What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD. This has nothing to do with economics - this is simple math...or it should be and is for everyone else but the gov't. Seems you need to take an accouting class - you know the one you take as a freshman in highschool.
BTW here is a link incase you are wondering who Walter Williams is.

CkG

So instead of: Clinton +200 million, GWB -500 billion

under 'correct' accounting principles, we now have

Clinton: -200 million, GWB -500,400,000,000.

What's your point?

They teach reading the first semester in your highschool - no?

If you go to a bad public highschool I'll repeat it for you -
"What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD."
Oh and don't forget this:
"Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets..."

So reading comprehension would allow us to deduce that "comparing" Clinton to Bush wasn't any part of my point and that maybe my point was THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

Got it yet Mr.Frosh?

Care to continue? Or do you need to come up with another supposed "insult" by saying yapping about 1st semester high-school? Had enough of your little quip thrown back at you?

CkG

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

They teach reading the first semester in your highschool - no?

If you go to a bad public highschool I'll repeat it for you -
"What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD."
Oh and don't forget this:
"Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets..."

So reading comprehension would allow us to deduce that "comparing" Clinton to Bush wasn't any part of my point and that maybe my point was THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

Got it yet Mr.Frosh?

Care to continue? Or do you need to come up with another supposed "insult" by saying yapping about 1st semester high-school? Had enough of your little quip thrown back at you?

CkG

There are 100,000 ways to look at a budget the size of the United States. The point is that they have been computing budgets the same way for decades, and during Clinton's second term, there *was* a budget surplus by the way the United States does accounting. You are trying to compare a national debt (of the largest GDP in the world, obviously) to personal debt and that doesn't make economic sense, they have very little in common.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer
I'm glad you epitomize everything of a typical bush supporter. You are clueless, you think that the US can be run on a policy of exceptionalism and you think the rest of the world is somehow impressed with our unilateralism. You think that every other country in the world is run by complete morons and has no clue on how to act in the international arena and that American foreign policy is hands down, the best, and that the UN, NATO, EU, and every other military and economic bloc is nonsensical. Every other government is just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and we are the only righteous force in the universe. You assume that the paradigm of american achievement is overwhelming force and that the rest of the world should bow to the great united states military.

so lets see you think that we went into iraq with out any support from any one??learn some more and come back and debate it ,,it is obvious that even after the fact that the ones who was leading the un at the time was corrupt ,,why did you think that certain countries done away with their debts to iraq??do you have a clue??do you think that they done it out of the goodness of thier heart?

In fact, I hope you vote for Bush. One more asshat here for me to make fun of when the party of 'Anyone But Bush' wins in November.

put your money where your mouth is ,,if you are that sure of your self

so tell me ,,how are you going to make fun of me when bush wins??

 

[dmcowen674]

Chill Beer <Hey that would work, Grin> , it's a long way to November.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer
20 posts ago I have typed a rebuttal to my original 20 reasons why bush sucks. If you think you are superior to me then take the time and set out why, on an individual basis, I was wrong.

you probably copied and pasted them from a bush hate site and i'm not even going to argue with it unless you can back them up ,,remember any one can post any thing ,,the ting is i don't see you backing them up ,,what i do see is your cheerleading

show us how great you back them up ,,and then i will tear you down ,,and this is not trolling which you will find out sooner or later

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

They teach reading the first semester in your highschool - no?

If you go to a bad public highschool I'll repeat it for you -
"What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD."
Oh and don't forget this:
"Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets..."

So reading comprehension would allow us to deduce that "comparing" Clinton to Bush wasn't any part of my point and that maybe my point was THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

Got it yet Mr.Frosh?

Care to continue? Or do you need to come up with another supposed "insult" by saying yapping about 1st semester high-school? Had enough of your little quip thrown back at you?

CkG

There are 100,000 ways to look at a budget the size of the United States. The point is that they have been computing budgets the same way for decades, and during Clinton's second term, there *was* a budget surplus by the way the United States does accounting. You are trying to compare a national debt (of the largest GDP in the world, obviously) to personal debt and that doesn't make economic sense, they have very little in common.

No -this isn't about debt - this is about budget deficits. If you spend more than you take in - you are in a deficit situation. Borrowing(IOUs) to pay for current spending doesn't suddenly mean you are running a surplus It doesn't matter how long the gov't has played the IOU game - it doesn't change what a deficit or a surplus is.

CkG

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer
There are 100,000 ways to look at a budget the size of the United States. The point is that they have been computing budgets the same way for decades, and during Clinton's second term, there *was* a budget surplus by the way the United States does accounting. You are trying to compare a national debt (of the largest GDP in the world, obviously) to personal debt and that doesn't make economic sense, they have very little in common.

i agree with you that for a long time there was a national debt ,,that was contributed by all the presidents in the past including SOME of clintons years ,,but what is the right thing for bush to do when this country is going in a depression??follow what hoover done??that was a disaster ,,shall we put people back to work like fdr did?? wll we probably could ,,just send all the immagrants back home and make the unemployed work on those jobs that the immigrants was working on ,,it would be equal to the say as the pay scale that fdr used

or do we entice big companies to invest in this country again ?the unemployment went down in january(i have not heard about feb. yet),,the stock market is going up ,,the same measure that every one was using when the economy was going down ,,now that the stock market is up jobs will start showing up ,,are we losing jobs to other countries ,,yes we are ,,just like europe is

companies are leaving to save money ,,just like when they left from the north and moved south ,what can we legally do to keep them here ??nothing really ,,but we can make jobs to replace those that have left

if you want to do something about companies that are moving to other countries ,,don't buy their stuff ,,don't by cheap stuff from other countries just because it is cheaper ,,buy the more expensive stuff that is made in this country

here is a little present for you

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, there was a Surplus not too long ago with the same Social Programs in place. Nice try.

if you think so ,,the economy was failing before clinton ever got out of office

so lets see clinton got a free ride on the dot.com boom ,,and lets not forget ,,gore invented the internet ,,so that made it easier for clinton

clinton made a suplus by cutting down our armed service ,,the one reason why we are probably short of manpower in iraq ,,so we had to send the reserves ,,and oh yea ,,when he cut down the military ,,he also cut back on the cia ,,and yes that is a bill that john kerry voted for ,,and that probably made it harder for them to get the information that we needed

if the cia knew in 98 that there was a threat of some one going to use our own planes against us ,,why didn't clinton implement his own plan??was he too busy?why didn't clinton do any thing about the terrorists attacking us on our soil??why didn't he keep iraq in line??would all of that affected his so called try for peace with palistine and israel?

when you put a weak president in office you end up with a weak country,,clinton done nothing to keep this country strong ,,he just kept on making it weaker,,and if kerry got in office he would do the same ,,when will we learn ??

how about his work between palistine and israel for a peace agreement ?? they had a plan that was going to cost the us 100 billion ,,and israel was in a hurry to meet the deadline until it was suicide bombed several times

so lets see can bush lose in 2004??i doubt it ,,not against kerry ,,that is the person that bush picked to run against

Sorry, the Reserves were not needed. What was needed was a President with Intelligence. Those in Iraq are there unnecessarily.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: beer
20 posts ago I have typed a rebuttal to my original 20 reasons why bush sucks. If you think you are superior to me then take the time and set out why, on an individual basis, I was wrong.

you probably copied and pasted them from a bush hate site and i'm not even going to argue with it unless you can back them up ,,remember any one can post any thing ,,the ting is i don't see you backing them up ,,what i do see is your cheerleading

show us how great you back them up ,,and then i will tear you down ,,and this is not trolling which you will find out sooner or later

Yes, I copied and pasted the original, as well as my rebuttals, because they were written exactly to refute the exact points that Dari came up with.

v

To you too.

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Sorry, the Reserves were not needed. What was needed was a President with Intelligence. Those in Iraq are there unnecessarily.

it was not the reserves that clinton cut ,,it was our main military ,cut the navy down by more then half ,and cut down the cia down just as much,and yes kerry voted for it too

you see that is the problem people don't think that the president has any intelligence ,,and they was wrong then and they are wrong now
obviously you don't think so ,but it is debatable,,so lets see because we have not found weapons of mass destrution yet ,,you thing that we don't belong there ,,well how long did it take us to find saddams airforce that he had buried in the desert??well we would not have found them if the wind did not blow the sand off of the tail fins ,so look how big the jets are and how long it took to find them ,,and that was by accident

maybe we won't fimd WMD's but maybe we will ,,it is a whole lot easier to hide WMD's then it is to hide jets

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Sorry, the Reserves were not needed. What was needed was a President with Intelligence. Those in Iraq are there unnecessarily.

it was not the reserves that clinton cut ,,it was our main military ,cut the navy down by more then half ,and cut down the cia down just as much,and yes kerry voted for it too

you see that is the problem people don't think that the president has any intelligence ,,and they was wrong then and they are wrong now
obviously you don't think so ,but it is debatable,,so lets see because we have not found weapons of mass destrution yet ,,you thing that we don't belong there ,,well how long did it take us to find saddams airforce that he had buried in the desert??well we would not have found them if the wind did not blow the sand off of the tail fins ,so look how big the jets are and how long it took to find them ,,and that was by accident

maybe we won't fimd WMD's but maybe we will ,,it is a whole lot easier to hide WMD's then it is to hide jets

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

The Reserves were not needed, nor were the Regulars.

No, the invasion should never have happened. The UN Inspectors were finding nothing from sites that were highly suspect based on US Intel, that alone should have been the sign that things were not as certain as the Bush Admin had believed. If Bush had Intelligence or Wisdom he would have reconsidered his stance, but he didn't and now the US Military(including Reserves) are maxxed out in Iraq. Clinton had nothing to do with Bush's error.