The W
Views: 99075476
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.9.07 1705
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - What a difference a decade makes Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1869 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 1506/5402
EXP: 27056421
For next: 75583

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 1.2.03 1921.10
Reposted on: 1.2.10 1922.29
From the Contract With America document used by the GOP in the 1994 elections:
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting This pledge called for the implementation of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

From Associated Press 2/1/03:
Bush's fiscal blueprint will estimate this year's deficit at $307 billion, with the 2004 shortfall dipping only to $304 billion, said congressional and administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

I'll leave it to the more argumentative members of the board to lay blame or defend this or whatever. I just find it interesting.
Promote this thread!
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1008/2104
EXP: 6573865
For next: 76825

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on 1.2.03 2027.54
Reposted on: 1.2.10 2028.10
There budget hawks and doves in each party, and it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with left/right stuff.

What happened in the 90s was a fortuitous (at least in my book, as I'm a big budget hawk) happenenstance in that both the Democrats and Republicans (most notably Clinton and Gingrich, but Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under Clinton, was probably the biggest factor in eliminating the deficit) in power both happened to be budget hawks, and they were able to get something done about it.

Now, you have no budget hawks in power. Jr.'s economic philosophy and economic team is essentially Reagan's, who was about as far from a budget hawk as you can get. And the budget hawks in the GOP are (understandably, from a political perspective) not standing up to Jr. right now.

I place the blame squarely with Jr. for the budget deficit. There's arguments on both sides for whether a deficit right now is necessary and good or not, but in terms of the responsibility for creating it, I don't see how you can blame anyone else. Of course, Jr. will probably try to finagle a reason to blame Bill Clinton.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 878/1759
EXP: 4911855
For next: 81015

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 2.2.03 0307.20
Reposted on: 2.2.10 0309.30
I personally think it is far too soon to worry about a huge deficit. We are in a terrible economy, our taxes were far too high, and I completely believe that the odds of the budget being cut before the taxes were is next to nothing.
I can understand a healthy skepticism about the idea, believe me. But I think it is far too soon to deem Bush's economic policy a "failure" so soon. Yes, there is a deficit, and I don't think the fact that it was going to happen that was was a surprise to anyone.
I also think that the damning of Bush so soon for the deficit is just a Democrat tactic to have SOMETHING to damn him for. If Saddaam can have 12 years of "benifit of the doubt," in regards to UN resolutions and WOMD, I think Bush deserves a little more than a month to see where he is going with this. After all, if you recall Reagan, there was a huge deficit, and our economy was stronger then than ever.
A deficit will not destroy this country, not in the short term. Not by a longshot. However, if by the end of his term, Bush has not made any strides in cutting spending, I think then it is the time to start really pointing fingers...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 2.2.03 0117)
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 785/6725
EXP: 37576924
For next: 27248

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 50 min.
#4 Posted on 2.2.03 1506.11
Reposted on: 2.2.10 1507.10

    A deficit will not destroy this country, not in the short term. Not by a longshot. However, if by the end of his term, Bush has not made any strides in cutting spending, I think then it is the time to start really pointing fingers...


Hopefully, the end of Bush's term will be the end of his presidency.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 885/1759
EXP: 4911855
For next: 81015

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 2.2.03 1738.13
Reposted on: 2.2.10 1738.51

    Originally posted by Big Bad

      A deficit will not destroy this country, not in the short term. Not by a longshot. However, if by the end of his term, Bush has not made any strides in cutting spending, I think then it is the time to start really pointing fingers...


    Hopefully, the end of Bush's term will be the end of his presidency.


Right there is one of the main reasons Democracy never works for long -
The inability for voters to be objective and their tendancy to believe wholeheartedly in whatever their party feeds them. This DOES work on both sides of the ball.
Seriously- Bush has done an outstanding job as President. He headed off a depression, an economic downturn that was GOING to happen (anyone with an ounce of knowlege about economics knows this), and it instead remained nothing more than a mild depression. He has maintained a tough line on Corperate mismanagement. He put a black man in the highest office a black man has ever held in this country. He is actively working to knock-down the outrageously high federal budget. He responded PERFECTLY to the 9-11 attacks, and has continued to do so.
Bush has faced challenge after challenge in his term, and I seriously doubt some past presidents would have handled themselves with the "grace under fire" that Bush has. But because he is a "Republican," people like Big Bad here are wishing for the end of his term.
I ask you, what could Bush have done BETTER in light of all that has happened? Can you name a single Democrat out there that could have performed as well? If you say Gore, I am sorry, wrong answer.
I also have to ask you- have you EVER voted across party lines? In the last election, I DID vote for several Democrats for state offices, and hell, even TWO GREEN PARTY CANDITATES.
90% of the problems this country has is that the voters are unwilling to put the best person for the job in office, instead, if that best person is a Libertarian, and complete buffoons are running on the Democratic or Republican tickets, more often than not, one of the latter 2 will win.
I am just asking FOR ONCE for you to look past your party politics BULLSHIT and look at the facts around you. We have a nation in real crisis and we happen to have a man in office who is carrying us through it SPENDIDLY. Don't take a chance by putting someone else there, simply because he is a damned Republican. That is like replacing a pacemaker with another device, untested, because it looks shinier. What the hell would THAT accomplish?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1010/2104
EXP: 6573865
For next: 76825

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 2 days
#6 Posted on 2.2.03 2101.10
Reposted on: 2.2.10 2101.40
Well, it's not Republicans I'm knee-jerk against. It's the Reagan-Jr. wing of the Republican party that I'm knee-jerk against. Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, is the most underrated president in history in my book, and Richard Nixon doesn't get enough credit either. Ignore the respective scandals, and I'd take either one of them over Clinton. Even Gingrich had his good points. On a local level, New York politics are weird (cross party endorsements, party switching after primaries, effective minor parties) so what party I vote for doesn't really mean what it means outside New York. For Congress though, I would never consider voting for Republican with the House and Senate so close, although in a perfect world there's 4 or 5 GOP senators I'd probably vote for over 4 or 5 Democrats.

I honestly think the Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations are the two worst things to happen to America, and don't have a good thing to say about either one. And the GOP has drifted so incredibly far to the right after 1980 (and espoused such nutty economic theories) that it's pretty unimaginable that I'd vote for a Republican in the near future. That doesn't mean that I see "Republican" and don't listen to what they have to say. But the fact remains that nowdays it is a very rare Republican that espouses a philosophy or positions that are remotely near mine, and I don't apologize for not voting for people who I don't agree with.

Seriously- Bush has done an outstanding job as President. He headed off a depression, an economic downturn that was GOING to happen (anyone with an ounce of knowlege about economics knows this), and it instead remained nothing more than a mild depression. He has maintained a tough line on Corperate mismanagement. He put a black man in the highest office a black man has ever held in this country. He is actively working to knock-down the outrageously high federal budget. He responded PERFECTLY to the 9-11 attacks, and has continued to do so.

Please understand that this is your opinion. I, for instance, completely disagree with everything you posted here (with the exection of appointing Colin Powell secretary of State, obviously), and laughed out loud at "He has maintained a tough line on Corporate mismanagement."

I ask you, what could Bush have done BETTER in light of all that has happened? Can you name a single Democrat out there that could have performed as well?

That's just it, Bush has "performed." He's an image President, performes very well for the cameras, and the media gives him a free pass.

Is there a Democrat that would look as good on TV and said catchy soundbytes like Jr.? I doubt it. Is there a Democrat that could have done a better job as President the last two years? Christ, there's few who wouldn't have.

In four years, we'll ask "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The answer, of course, will be no. The question is whether Jr. and the media will be able to keep putting the blame on Clinton. Eventually you have to take responsibility for what happenes on your watch.

(edited by MoeGates on 2.2.03 2216)

(edited by MoeGates on 2.2.03 2218)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 458/1528
EXP: 4070325
For next: 120823

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2797 days
Last activity: 2640 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 2.2.03 2122.21
Reposted on: 2.2.10 2126.13
And the GOP has drifted so incredibly far to the right after 1980 (and espoused such nutty economic theories) that it's pretty unimaginable that I'd vote for a Republican in the near future

Huh? What nutty theories? Like the one that JFK espoused, about tax cuts being good for the economy? And please tell me how they've drifted so far to the right; I'm just not seeing it. The Democrats have the Socialist-sponsored Progressive Caucus, of which their LEADER is a member. Tell me how the Republicans are equally to the right. Hell, Bush signed that digusting, anti-contitutional McCain/Feingold bill. And McCain is as right-wing these days as Lincoln Chafee.

That's just it, Bush has "performed." He's an image President, performes very well for the cameras, and the media gives him a free pass.

Is there a Democrat that would look as good on TV and said catchy soundbytes like Jr.? I doubt it. Is there a Democrat that could have done a better job as President the last two years? Christ, there's few who wouldn't have.


Again, substance, please. Bill Clinton was the greatest image president ever. Go read Bush at War, by Bob Woodward. The man's handling of every threat that crossed his desk was done so with highest regard to his public image, and little regard to the public safety.

(edited by PalpatineW on 2.2.03 2224)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 893/4700
EXP: 21504972
For next: 331690

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1236 days
Last activity: 1033 days
#8 Posted on 3.2.03 0549.20
Reposted on: 3.2.10 0551.26

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Richard Nixon doesn't get enough credit either.


For what? Price controls? Inflation? The command economy?
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1012/3025
EXP: 11195801
For next: 275644

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 3.2.03 0754.52
Reposted on: 3.2.10 0757.59

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I also have to ask you- have you EVER voted across party lines?


Just for the record - I voted for Jim Roddey for Allegheny County Chairman in 1999, the first November election I ever voted in, for that matter. There's also a good chance that Arlen Spector will get my vote in 2002.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 46/810
EXP: 1517816
For next: 59739

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
#10 Posted on 3.2.03 1016.26
Reposted on: 3.2.10 1021.20

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy (and shortened by Corajudo)

    Right there is one of the main reasons Democracy never works for long
    Seriously- Bush has done an outstanding job as President. He headed off a depression, an economic downturn that was GOING to happen (anyone with an ounce of knowlege about economics knows this), and it instead remained nothing more than a mild depression.
    Bush has faced challenge after challenge in his term. I ask you, what could Bush have done BETTER in light of all that has happened?



I'm not sure I'd argue that 'Democracy never works for long,' and I'm worried about the alternative to Democracy.

In general, the only certainty that someone with 'an ounce of economic knowledge' has is that we will have economic downturns and they are GOING to happen, the rest of the comment is pure speculation. As far as challenge after challenge, he sure did a good job upholding the tenets of free trade that he espoused during the campaign. He sure exhibited a strong backbone when the steel companies asked for higher steel tariffs and when the agricultural lobby asked for more farm subsidies. Then, within ONE WEEK after passing these measures, he had the temerity to go to South America and tell Argentina, Brazil and Peru the only way for their economies to prosper would be through free trade. 'Do as I say...'


    Originally posted by Moe Gates (and shortened by Corajudo)

    I honestly think the Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations are the two worst things to happen to America, and don't have a good thing to say about either one. And the GOP has drifted so incredibly far to the right after 1980 (and espoused such nutty economic theories) that it's pretty unimaginable that I'd vote for a Republican in the near future.



As far as Reagan's term, I don't see how you can it was the worst thing to happen to America. Even if you hate everything else about his presidency, he did win the Cold War and caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. His other main accomplishment was that he tamed inflation, but I think you have to give some credit to the Federal Reserve Bank for that. I'd argue that slavery, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor (and the ensuing Japanese interment), Jim Crow laws and many other things were far worse things that happened to America. In fact, I don't think any reputable historian regards Reagan as even one of the worst presidents (much less THE worst). Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by his nutty economic theories. Whether or not you agree with them, they did stimulate the economy and end inflation at the same time. That's no small feat (as anyone with 'an ounce of economic knowledge' can tell you).

As far as evaluating Bush Jr., I'm not a fan right now, but he's only halfway through one term. Let's at least let him finish most of that term before we rush to judgement.

eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 524/1084
EXP: 2431066
For next: 30798

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2955 days
Last activity: 2951 days
#11 Posted on 3.2.03 2259.53
Reposted on: 3.2.10 2303.01
The Soviet Union was failing well before Reagan came into office, and Gorbachev (is that how to spell it?) had a hell of a lot more to do with it.

Also, Nixon's race policy isn't all that bad. While he would seem to have been racist and anti-semitic and all around insane, he had a decent record in regard to race issues.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 793/6725
EXP: 37576924
For next: 27248

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 50 min.
#12 Posted on 4.2.03 0021.54
Reposted on: 4.2.10 0022.39

    Bush has faced challenge after challenge in his term, and I seriously doubt some past presidents would have handled themselves with the "grace under fire" that Bush has. But because he is a "Republican," people like Big Bad here are wishing for the end of his term.
    I ask you, what could Bush have done BETTER in light of all that has happened? Can you name a single Democrat out there that could have performed as well? If you say Gore, I am sorry, wrong answer.
    I also have to ask you- have you EVER voted across party lines? In the last election, I DID vote for several Democrats for state offices, and hell, even TWO GREEN PARTY CANDITATES.


I've never voted Republican....but then again, I'm Canadian and 21 years old, so I've only voted in one federal election in my life. And I voted Liberal, since our conservative candidates up here are idiots (not unlike yours).

I dislike Bush because....

a) He seems like a genuinely ignorant human being that would be lost without a teleprompter.
b) He wants to start a war with Iraq, otherwise known as "Al-Queda Recruitment Drive '03."
c) He's destroying the environment.
d) He's an utter tool for the oil companies, which isn't unrelated to the above point, and other corporate interests.

So yeah, if I lived in the USA, I'd vote against this clown no matter who the Democrats ran (except Lieberman, who seems to have a problem with personal freedoms). Frankly, if I had a vote, I'd probably go Green.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 897/4700
EXP: 21504972
For next: 331690

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1236 days
Last activity: 1033 days
#13 Posted on 4.2.03 0553.48
Reposted on: 4.2.10 0554.31

    Originally posted by Big Bad
    And I voted Liberal, since our conservative candidates up here are idiots (not unlike yours)


I love giant sweeping statements that are inherently false....
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1012/2104
EXP: 6573865
For next: 76825

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 2 days
#14 Posted on 4.2.03 0954.33
Reposted on: 4.2.10 0958.09
I'd argue that slavery, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor (and the ensuing Japanese interment), Jim Crow laws and many other things were far worse things that happened to America. In fact, I don't think any reputable historian regards Reagan as even one of the worst presidents (much less THE worst).

Please take hyperbolic statements with a grain of salt here. Maybe it's my fault, because the same group of 5 or 6 people have really been posting back and forth here for months, and I guess we're kind of used to each other's writing styles. I'll rephrase to say that the Reagan and Jr. administrations are the two worst presidential administrations of the modern era.

"Reputable Historians" know better than to pass judgement on Reagan in a historical context yet. The man's not even dead yet, for God's sake. Of course, I'm not a reputable historian, and I'll bet neither are you. We're just a couple of guys expressing our opinion on the Internet, and as such, I at least really don't worry about if Kenneth Jackson is going to read my posts and take issue with the historiographical arguments.

So yeah, if I lived in the USA, I'd vote against this clown no matter who the Democrats ran (except Lieberman, who seems to have a problem with personal freedoms). Frankly, if I had a vote, I'd probably go Green.

Jesus, there's a nightmare matchup. Kind of like the Jean Cretain vs. Stockwell Day in your country, I'd imagine. But at least you have a couple other real parties to vote for.



(edited by MoeGates on 4.2.03 1055)
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 49/810
EXP: 1517817
For next: 59738

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
#15 Posted on 4.2.03 1712.08
Reposted on: 4.2.10 1713.59
    Originally posted by MoeGates

    Please take hyperbolic statements with a grain of salt here. Maybe it's my fault, because the same group of 5 or 6 people have really been posting back and forth here for months, and I guess we're kind of used to each other's writing styles. I'll rephrase to say that the Reagan and Jr. administrations are the two worst presidential administrations of the modern era.



Sorry and I did blow your argument out of proportion, but if the sentence had not have begun with 'I honestly think...' then I would have ignored it (I couldn't resist). Now, if you define the modern era as the last century, then are you saying that Reagan was worse than Hoover? Or, if you want more current history, that he was a worse president than Ford (near as I can remember, all Ford did was pardon Nixon and respond to economic crisis by passing out WIN buttons) or Carter (who kissed Breznev on the cheek and then was SHOCKED that the Soviet government didn't live up to their agreements)? Bush Sr. wasn't so great either, for what that's worth. Let's leave Bush Jr. out because he's only halfway through his term and while I am inclined to agree that he has been a terrible president so far, I can't judge him while he's still in office, especially since Iraq and N. Korea are still unresolved.

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    "Reputable Historians" know better than to pass judgement on Reagan in a historical context yet. The man's not even dead yet, for God's sake. Of course, I'm not a reputable historian, and I'll bet neither are you. We're just a couple of guys expressing our opinion on the Internet, and as such, I at least really don't worry about if Kenneth Jackson is going to read my posts and take issue with the historiographical arguments.


Point well taken on the reputable historians, but if it's too early to judge Reagan's presidency, then I don't see how anyone can judge Bush Jr.'s presidency, which has just started its third year. Like I said, I'm not a fan right now and think he has been pretty awful, but it's way too early to declare him tied for the worst president of the modern era.

    Originally posted by MoeGates

    Jesus, there's a nightmare matchup. Kind of like the Jean Cretain vs. Stockwell Day in your country, I'd imagine.



Speaking of nightmare matchups, I was talking with a colleague from Louisiana and we were comparing worst election choice stories. He took the cake with the Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke election. He said that he saw a bumper sticker that said: "Vote for the crook, it's important" (also, my favorite Edwards story was after one of his terms, don't remember which, when a reporter asked Edwards how he justified the HUGE increase in wealth he had achieved during his term, Edwards responded by saying that he had taken an oath of office, not a vow of poverty)

(edited by Corajudo on 4.2.03 1714)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 461/1528
EXP: 4070325
For next: 120823

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2797 days
Last activity: 2640 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 4.2.03 1932.41
Reposted on: 4.2.10 1951.25
Come on, fellas... If you're going to say someone is the "worst president ever," a la the Comic Book Guy, let's back it up.

Corajudo, for all that you seem to agree with Moe, you've more or less proven that Reagan's presidency was actually quite excellent.

And what has President Bush done that Gore would have done better? Perhaps we should have lobbed a couple cruise missiles into Afghanistan instead of at least trying to get bin Laden?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1019/2104
EXP: 6573865
For next: 76825

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 2 days
#17 Posted on 5.2.03 0959.50
Reposted on: 5.2.10 1001.38
Well, maybe we shouldn't have armed Bin Laden in the first place. Of course by "we" I mean "President Reagan."
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 50/810
EXP: 1517817
For next: 59738

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
#18 Posted on 5.2.03 1000.22
Reposted on: 5.2.10 1002.15

    Originally posted by PalpatineW


    Corajudo, for all that you seem to agree with Moe, you've more or less proven that Reagan's presidency was actually quite excellent.

    And what has President Bush done that Gore would have done better? Perhaps we should have lobbed a couple cruise missiles into Afghanistan instead of at least trying to get bin Laden?



I seem have been pegged as a liberal, which isn't true. Idealogically, I am more of a libertarian than a liberal or conservative, so you'll see me lined up with Moe, OFB and Jaguar on some issues and with yourself, Grimis and Pool-Boy on others. For the record, I did vote for Bush against Gore (I also voted for Bush as Governor) but have been very disappointed in his performance to this point. However, he still has two years and we'll see how that goes.

Anyhow, I haven't been posting here long so all that will come out in time. I posted a little on the old board and then lurked here for a long time before joining up. In general, I don't watch that much wrestling anymore (my wife hates, hates, HATES the attitude era and absolutely cannot stand any man-woman violence so I only watch it when she isn't home or is busy; the product isn't currently worth the headache), so I just checked into the Wienerboard to see what was going on. I like the general tone of the discussions; the majority of the posters are reasonable and intelligent. Hopefully I can add a little something to the discussion (non-wrestling, anyways) and contribute another point of view.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1301/3273
EXP: 12731549
For next: 359804

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 166 days
Last activity: 166 days
#19 Posted on 7.2.03 2343.41
Reposted on: 7.2.10 2346.04
Palp, maybe my memory is a little hazy, but didn't we lob a whole bunch of cruise missles into Afghanistan, and not manage to catch bin Laden? Though I honestly don't know what Gore would've done in response, or that it would've been 'better', I do know that what you just said is what Bush did.

-Jag
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 465/1528
EXP: 4070325
For next: 120823

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2797 days
Last activity: 2640 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 8.2.03 0825.17
Reposted on: 8.2.10 0827.58

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Palp, maybe my memory is a little hazy, but didn't we lob a whole bunch of cruise missles into Afghanistan, and not manage to catch bin Laden? Though I honestly don't know what Gore would've done in response, or that it would've been 'better', I do know that what you just said is what Bush did.

    -Jag



We did, yes. Clinton did. I was taking a shot at Clinton/Gore, and suggesting that lobbing some missiles from offshore is all we would have done. Also, we'd probably replace the US Congress with the UN, because God knows the "international community" opinion is paramount. Maybe Iraq could chair our intelligence committee.

Two things for Moe.

1.) I don't seem to remember us giving any airliners or copies of the Koran to bin Laden, so, really, that didn't bite us in the ass.

2.) At the time, we were worried about the spread of communism, an ideology that wanted us dead (cf. Cuban missiles). I don't think people cared as much about Arab or Muslim lunacy. Now, I'm not saying it was necessarily a GOOD idea to arm bin Laden, but it certainly didn't seem half so evil at the time. By the time Clinton's term rolled around, though, we knew a lot more about bin Laden, as he had attacked us already.

And Reagan put the nail on the Soviet coffin, whereas Clinton just punted the problem of bin Laden onto future presidencies. Heck, Clinton had no problem leaving this legacy for his buddy Al Gore, were he to have won the election.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: UN is always good for a laugh
Next thread: Powell's Iraq Case
Previous thread: Question on flying the flag
(1869 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - What a difference a decade makesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.195 seconds.