Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Damn, he still has that old Clinton MOJO. It pays to listen to Bill. He certainly proved it during his presidency. And he did know how to meet people half way. Nuff said.
From Huffington Post:
Clinton gave the package his full-throated endorsement, even while noting that he opposes the extension of upper-income tax cuts – though he himself will benefit from it.
“I personally believe this is a good deal and the best he could have gotten under the circumstances,” Clinton said, urging fellow Democrats to support it.
“If I was in office now, I would have done what the president has done,” he said.
Clinton, whose focus on the economy helped get him elected in 1992, said he spends about an hour a day studying up on it and trying to figure out what to do about it. He said the proposal to trim Social Security taxes is the “single most effective tax cut” to support economic activity and create jobs. “I expect it to lower the unemployment rate and keep us going,” he said.
“In my opinion, this is a good bill and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it,” Clinton said. “I think this is a much, much better agreement than would be reached were we to wait until January.”
So is Bill right or wrong? Is this the best deal President Obama will get?
Even if I disagree with the message, which I do, I HAVE to give the man credit, he makes the whole President thing look easy.
Interesting to hear from the real “Big Dog” — the last president to lower
our national debt. He still is one of the smartest and most able political leaders
in recent American history. But I’m, biting my lower lip, still angry
over his lack of zipper control and the tremendous negative impact that had
on our country. It gave “W” the small edge he needed to sneak into the
presidency. 9-11 may still have happened under Gore, but I believe the
laser focus would have been the elimination of the monsters that planned it
and not, before the primary mission was accomplished, a side trip to Iraq.
( “W” is remembered as a great American leader – in Iran.)
And don’t even get me started on that self-centered SOB Nader.
Big Dog, it wouldn’t have had any effect on the country at all if certain Republicans hadn’t tried to make it an issue. Many of those same people who were after him, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get even, had zipper problems themselves.
I can’t defend his zipper but I can say it really was between him and Hillary and no one else, like all infidelity. He should have never been asked the questions he was asked. If I went around and asked men questions like he was asked, I should expect to get punched in the face.
Unless he was doing the deed in Lafayette Park or on the front lawn, it really wasn’t any of our business.
Did Nader have a zipper problem? UFB! Now THAT surprises me.
That whole zipper-gate thing was such BS. I’m not mad that Republicans did anything to Democrats, it’s that the American People spoke, and the Republicans ignored us ( a little foretaste ). I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it a thousand times to any fellow conservative…you may not have agreed with what he believed, but you GOT to give the guy credit, he was a President. What he did with cigars was nobody’s business but his. It was a little awkward to see Obama try to figure out what to do in the presence of an actual force.
The razor thin “victory” of Bush II in 2000 could have gone the other
way for numerous reasons including Gore not having to deal with the
backlash of Bill-Monica and the third party run of Ralph Nader – all
perhaps small factors but crucial in an election that close.
(And when you take a public office – especially becoming President of
the United States you have to meet a higher standard of conduct.
If Clinton had been President of Arkansas Oil & Gas then I agree it
would be a private issue. Plus Clinton, like Obama today, had to know the
GOPers would strike at any error).
2000 should have never come down to hanging chads and a
questionable Supreme Court decision.
BUSH II, taking the primary focus off Bin Laden and his fellow mass
murderers with the invasion of Iraq, made one of the greatest mistakes in
American history and we will continue to pay for it in lives and wealth
for years. A Gore presidency would not have been perfect, 9-11
or a version might have happened, but it is hard to believe Al would
have botched the response nearly as much.
BUSH II is a great national hero — in Iran.
@Big Dog, I don’t think its my business who anyone else I am not married to sleeps with–Clinton, Bush, Daddy Bush or Obama. The fact that they are president doesn’t change a thing. I don’t see that higher standard in someone’s bedroom habits. Reading history, it almost seems like it being a prerequisite to be a philanderer.
Actually Clinton had something on people and refused to use it.
Yeah, what Slowpoke said above. I can see why Obama is not sure what to do in Clinton’s presence – Clinton definitely far overshadows him.
No president is a superman. Clinton was walking on an icy sidewalk and slipped on the ice (Monica) and fell. The GOP yelled and screamed that he wasn’t a superman. The GOP wasted our time and money trying to point out that Clinton was fallible. However, the DEMs probably would have done the same thing if it were a GOP President.
They wasted our time and our money, BS in VA. I resent the hell out of it to this day.
So many that went after him had their own flies down. Remind me to tell you my chance to have made a cool million when Larry Flynt made his offer. It would have probably been easier to list those who didn’t have a flapping zipper.
I will. Thanks
Sorry, folks, but there is an error here. The eye was taken off the big target at the senior level when Bill and Al were in power. Have you never paid attention to the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission? The sin for Bush II was that he failed to see that and rectify the mistake before 9/11 came along. He began an intensive closing of the proverbial barn door after the horse had escaped. I suspect that Al would have made the same mistake.
Woulda coulda shoulda. Maybe if Clinton had flattened Mecca all would be well. And where did Daddy Bush fail? And where did Reagan fail? We can take it back generations of presidents.
Now, if Bill Clinton could take over for Barack on all things presidential….
And if you knew just how much I dislike Clinton, then you would know how much I really can’t stand Obama…..
“If ol’ Billy would only use his gifts for good…..”, is what I think every time I watch him speak. He is gifted.
Moon, please don’t be so flippant in your defense of Mr. Clinton in this instance. I was there — right there on the spot. I saw it. It affected me both professionally and personally. Unless you were there or somehow have some in-depth knowledge of intelligence operations and especially counterterrorism operations in the Clandestine Service, you have no leg to stand on in your automatic defense of the man.
For your information, the building of a more effective and enhanced CS counterterrorist organization was the direct result of orders from President Reagan via William Casey. It was begun by deploying new operational concepts, by a new melding of widely varied professional talents, and the creation of a laser focus on the terrorist issue by the new group. Moreover, it was under Reagan that the various intelligence services throughout the U.S. government began to overcome at last the legendary J. Edgar Hoover syndrome of everyone for himself and started to cooperate and work together as they should have from the very beginning. That continued under Bush I. But. when Clinton came to power, that whole effort was negated by the famous “Wall” his administration re-erected between those same services. That “Wall”, among other things, was one of the primary reasons, in my opinion. why the 9/11 perps were able to escape detection until it was too late.
There were also other things which the Clinton administration did to (1) severely limit the abilities of our officers in the field to penetrate terrroist groups; and (2) undermine the morale of the CS itself. What I do not know is whether all this was on direct orders from Clinton.. My sense at the time was that we had a C-in-C who was not interested and who allowed himself to be distracted completely by non-security issues, leaving the security services in the hands of those who were far more liberal than he and who managed to screw the pooch royally because of their ideological shortsightedness. They tell me that eventually as many as 25% of our most experienced CS officers opted out of the service because of the adverse trends under the Clinton administration. I cannot verify that figure. But I can tell you this: I was one of them.
Nothing which happened subsequently truly surprised me — not the Kovar Towers; not the embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam; not the U.S.S. Cole. The only thing which really surprised me was the magnitude and the chutzpah of 9/11 himself. Even I could not believe that our protective capabilities had fallen so far so fast.
Wolverine, we will have to agree to disagree. I have always had a great deal of respect for Bill Clinton. I certainly am not going to dissolve that respect because some people don’t like him or his policies. For everyone who shares your opinion, there are probably2 who don’t.
The entire country was distracted by political enemies who wanted to get Bill Clinton and pretty much would go to any lengths to see that it happened. I watched this happening before he was even inaugurated. The entire issue really wasn’t any of our business. It was between him and his wife.
Moon, you can continue to respect Bill Clinton as much as you want. I have no beef with that. But, personally, the Monica Lewinsky issue had no role whatsoever in the thought processes which went into my last post — nothing at all. Moreover, whether or not there were outside political forces determined to “get” Bill Clinton even before he took the oath is, in my opinion, immaterial. You take that oath and you are obliged to seize control of all the levers and buttons of responsibility to the best of your abilities — regardless. In this particular instance, it is my direct observation from both participation and experience that the man did not do well and that the history books of the future will reflect that. They will also fault Bush II for not waking up in time.
@wolverine. If you want the historical record corrected, perhaps you should consider writing a book yourself. As you know, historians base their assessments on written records including eyewitness accounts. Like the bunch on this blog, those historians appear to be in love with Bubba due to his charisma. If you do not do anything to correct Clinton’s record on terrorism, then it may never be corrected. Remember that Richard Clarke has campaigned for nearly 10 years that he developed an effective counter-terrorism program under Clinton that was essentially shelved by Bush II prior to 9/11.
– The invasion of Iraq, pushed by GOP neocons, was a massive mistake
that cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and took our major
focus off finding the deadly criminals who planned 9-11.
I don’t think Gore would have made that costly error.
– The disgust with Bill/Monica, even with an impact on only 1 or 2% of
the voters, might well have tilted the razor’s edge 2000 election
to BushII.
I also don’t think that Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. He would have treated it as a criminal act, not an act of war. The intel policies of the Clintons would have been continued.
Cargo-
After 9-11 there was clear urgency of purpose to
find and kill Obama and his followers wherever they were,
not just for revenge but to prevent another attack.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen – attack the vipers and eliminate
them. Use the full might of the American military and strike hard.
I’m angry that didn’t happen. We somehow got sidetracked to
“nation building” and playing bloody whack-a-mole with local
insurgents.
There should have been no hesitation or ambiguity on the
morning of 9-12 on what we should do quickly and well.
And invading Iraq, run by nasty SOB’s, but with zip to do with
9-11, shouldn’t have distracted us from our primary mission.
(One key result of that error has been making Iran the unquestioned
regional power – an expensive American “gift” for leaders who hate us).
I am not sure that the American public knows what victory in a limited war such looks like. But I would argue that it has been achieved in Iraq. The violence in Iraq has been quelled to a manageable level; the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq have been captured or killed. A new government (for the most part) respects democratic processes and observes proper civil-military relations. The Sunnis and Shia battle each other through political processes rather than violence. And a new strategic democracy exists in the heart of the Middle East which puts pressure on regimes in Iran, Syria, and Libya where their citizens do not enjoy the same freedoms.
It is true that this war was much more costly in blood and treasure than originally envisioned, but that should reinforce thelesson that the enemy always gets a vote in the tactics and duration of the conflict. War should not be initiated as anything but the last resort. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we should accept the victory for what it is and move on.
@Kelly, but we haven’t moved on yet….I think that is the problem. And I would agree with you….there is not point in crying over spilt milk as in we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. It’s done.
I agree with Moon. It’s done. However, I would like to add just one thing. In Iraq we went in originally against organized (I use the term loosely) armed forces. That battle was over rather quickly and with minimal troop losses. Where Bush II and his advisors made the big mistake, in my opinion, is in not foreseeing the second phase, to wit a guerrilla war, largely urban, led by al-Qaeda and disgruntled Sunni elements. As demonstrated earlier in Somalia, we seem not to have been as well prepared for that eventuality as we should have been. Hence the bitter scramble to find another way, that being the addition of many more troops and a change in tactics.
If we had gone into Afghanistan with the same force instead of Iraq — at a time when Aghanistan was still in almost complete control of the Taliban — I think we we would have had a guerilla war from the very outset; and I personally don’t think the intial results would have been very pretty. There would not have been a quiick “Mission Accomplished!!” Different kind of foe, different terrain, different culture, lesser military effectiveness for our technological superiority and a whopping higher level of civilian casualties. You just have to look at the war in Afghanistan now — even after we regained our footing and improved our tactical understanding through the Iraq experience. Slow and hard and dangerous for our troops. So, after 9/11 in Afghanistan, we tried the bombings, we used largely indigenous forces opposed to the Taliban regime, and then some surgical attempts of our own to get to al-Qaeda in their mountain strongholds. Didn’t work with regard to al-Qaeda. The big elephant in that room? The border with Pakistan and the difficulties encountered in cooperating with that country — even now.
Anyway, Moon is right, It is done in Iraq. The future is up to the Iraqis themselves. We have to stop refighting the previous war. Now we have to put our support behind Petraeus in a different and tougher battle.
Iraq was a war of choice, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity.
One could have been avoided, the other could not have been.
Learning from our most tragic errors isn’t just”refighting the previous war”,
but learning from our mistakes. We should never forget the neocon lies
that led up to BushII’s invasion so we won’t make the same horrible
mistake again.
You missed my point, Big Dog. My post did not address the right or wrong of going into Iraq per se —- just the belief that going into Afghanistan in full force instead at that particular point in time would have been an entirely different story simply from the aspects of military effectiveness and potential results. I posit that people back here would have been screaming about the “Vietnam quagmire” in a matter of a couple of months, 9/11 or no 9/11. I suspect that, with the memories of the fast and clean First Gulf War in mind, we would probably have been shocked by repeats of “BlackHawk Down!” up the wazoo. In my opinion, we were not quite ready for that militarily, angry as we all might have been at al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You saw the tactical screwups even when we tried to take out al-Qaeda surgically back then. Petraeus learned some lessons in Irag. He is applying them now.