Since last post: 4360 days Last activity: 4354 days
#21 Posted on 8.2.03 1211.22 Reposted on: 8.2.10 1212.11
And whom Clinton probably expected to win the election.
As far as "bad presidents" of American history go, I do believe that Warren G. Harding consistently gets voted the worst president in U.S. history. Personally, if it wasn't for JFK's eventual stance on civil rights in 1963, I would consider him right down there with Harding too (for both would have done little in the White House besides sleep with women and die shortly afterward).
Personally, I don't know how Reagan should be viewed yet. I am soon to do some reading to prepare for a lecture on his presidency, however, so I'll have a better idea soon. It perhaps is still a bit too close to his time to judge him fairly, but there has been some historical work done on him recently offering more perspective on his years.
I guess you can just label all Republicans of the last 20 years "the worst" if you have an aversion to the party's courting of religious conservatives, but then you're still begging the question.
Since last post: 2200 days Last activity: 967 days
#23 Posted on 8.2.03 1418.05 Reposted on: 8.2.10 1419.18
Originally posted by JaguarSo if Bush fails to capture bin Laden by the end of his term, can we say that he punted the problem onto future presidencies, just like Clinton?
Bin Laden is probably dead anyway. I would say his war on Al Quaida could be deemed a failure if he fails to produce any evidence that he severely impacted the ability of the terrorists to attack us. But he has already done that. You guys always seem to forget that from DAY ONE, they have said the goal of this whole thing is not to capture/kill Bin Laden. Sure, that would be nice, but seriously, it would not do much good. They probably already have proof that they guy is dead, they just won't release it because people like you will start to insist that the "War on Terror" is over, when the organization is still strong and aggressive. Clinton did not do a damned thing to stop Al Quaida. I think the difference between the two is pretty clear. Though, in Clinton's defense (I feel so dirty), 9-11 had not happened. So Clinton's refusal to take Bin Laden was nothing more than lack of foresight.
Since last post: 1466 days Last activity: 171 days
#26 Posted on 9.2.03 0501.25 Reposted on: 9.2.10 0504.02
Originally posted by PalpatineWNo. The point is not that Clinton tried and failed, but that he did not try.
Im sorry you are wrong on this one. Ive been in the Navy since 1995, and every year we receive warnings and missions concerning terrorist groups, including Al-Quaeda. Ive done two deployments to the middle east, in 1996 and 1998, and weve supported and assisted anti terrorism missions. Just because CNN didnt tell you about it doesnt mean it didnt happen. There has always been a war on terrorism. They were always hunting for Bin Laden and other leaders.
The reason that Bill Clinton didnt invade Afghanistan or Iraq durinbg his presidency. There wouldve been no support from the American people. And without 9-11 G.W. Bush wouldnt have support either. Its that simple.
Since last post: 3715 days Last activity: 3558 days
#27 Posted on 9.2.03 1402.15 Reposted on: 9.2.10 1405.00
I'll defer to you on this one, rock, but...
In 1996, Clinton and the Saudis pressured the government of Sudan to get Osama out of there. Osama and a couple cargo planes headed back to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in Qatar. We could have stopped him with minimal, or even zero loss to ourselves or our allies, by capturing or killing him on the runway or in the air. That was a political decision, and, it seems, a bad one.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE