$100 billion failure

[editec]

please post a link for your quote or edit it out.
thanks

I'll do it, but that's anal retentive nonsense, del

The link is posted in the original post.

 

[del]

I'll do it, but that's anal retentive nonsense, del

The link is posted in the original post.

well, if it was, i didn't see it.
thanks for your courtesy. i'm deeply touched.

 

[WillowTree]

Really? Of course Clinton made some policy mistakes, most notably NAFTA, but we never were in a extreme recession rapidly becoming a major depression. And torture was not a policy of this nation at that time. I think the number of soldiers dead from combat during his two terms was less than 100. And the debt ratio to GNP was actually declining. Your statement is simply an adult version of "you're one two".[/QUOTE]



no, tea sipping was his policy,, how many soldiers died in the Kobart towers? how many died on the Cole, and all the while bubba got his blow jobs..then there was 9-11,, 9-11 happened cause bubba did nothing. kinda like Nero he fiddled while rome burned.

 

[Old Rocks]

There were few warning in all of these attacks. And Clinton did reply to both the first WTC attack, and to the attack on the embassies. The people that first attacked us in the first WTC attack are all but one, serving out the rest of their lives in prison. As far as the Cole attack goes, that was at the very end of Clinton's last term, and was up to Bush to decide how and who to retaliate against for it. Here is the real information comparing Bush and Clinton's actions concerning terrorism;

A History of Clinton, Bush, and Terrorism || kuro5hin.org



A mere 38 days after taking office, the World Trade Center is attacked for the first time. Clinton captures and imprisons Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah.
January 1994: Clinton's first crime bill provides for stringent anti-terrorism measures, as does the more specifically targetted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Clinton also requested and received funding for sponsoring simulated terrorist attacks to test the effectiveness of municpal response teams.
July 1996: Congressional Republicans object to Clinton's proposed expansion of the intelligence agencies wiretap authority. Newt Gingrich tells Fox News Sunday: "When you have an agency that turns 900 personnel files over to people like Craig Livingstone... it's very hard to justify giving the agency more power."
September 1996: Republicans in Congress refuse all of Clinton's requested counterterrorism spending. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "The administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."
Summer 1998: Clinton issues series of top secret directives to the CIA authorizing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and several of his top lieutenants.
August 1998: Alleged chemical weapons factories in Sudan are bombed. The bombings are met with bipartisan approval: "The President did exactly the right thing. By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sancturies for terrorists." -Newt Gingrich. Richard Clarke, counterterrorism expert under both Bush and Clinton, testifying before the 9-11 commission, on the bombing: "To this day, there are a lot of people who believe that it was not related to a terrorist group, not related to chemical weapons. They're wrong, by the way. But the President had decided in PDD-39 that there should be a low threshold of evidence when it comes to the possibility of terrorists getting their access -- getting their hands on chemical weapons. And he acted on that basis."
Paul Bremer to the Washington Post on Clinton: "he correctly focused on bin Laden". "Overall, I give him very high remarks" - Robert Oakley, Reagan counterterrorism czar.
Economy prospers, crime is down, abortions are down, and teenage pregnencies are down. Clinton, however, very concerned about the "growing threat of terrorism".
August 2000: Bush says "If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" Proceed to kick the crap out of Afghanistan the following September.

 

[dilloduck]

As far as the Cole attack goes, that was at the very end of Clinton's last term, and was up to Bush to decide how and who to retaliate against for it.

oh really ? It's a tit for tat retaliation game now is it ?

 

[KittenKoder]

*blinks* Wait, people actually think Bush Jr. did a better job than Clinton? .... *hears Twilight Zone theme* Bottom line, Clinton wasn't perfect, no one is, especially the leaders (thus why were are commanded by our laws to question them at every turn). But Bush Jr. was a moron (I actually feel sorry for his dad) who did more damage to our country in 8 years than ... well ... we did in the last 50.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Fundimental failure here was in misreading the success of the Marshal plan as planning success from DC back in the 40's. The Marshal plan succeeded on local terms, rather than on terms from DC. Germany did very well under Adenauer. Britain suffered horribly under Attlee. Japan recovered real fast once McArthur went to Korea.

We really should have had better people ready to organize things from an Iraqi point of view from day one. And I do think they should have had a more federal structure, with de facto independence for the Kurds.

No matter what happened, running the show from DC is always a mistake. Especially here.

 

[editec]

Fundimental failure here was in misreading the success of the Marshal plan as planning success from DC back in the 40's. The Marshal plan succeeded on local terms, rather than on terms from DC. Germany did very well under Adenauer. Britain suffered horribly under Attlee. Japan recovered real fast once McArthur went to Korea.

We really should have had better people ready to organize things from an Iraqi point of view from day one. And I do think they should have had a more federal structure, with de facto independence for the Kurds.

No matter what happened, running the show from DC is always a mistake. Especially here.

We cannot do for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany.

We don't have many homegrown American industries left to betray like we had back in the 40s and 50s and 60's.

 

[Skeptik]

We cannot do for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany.

We don't have many homegrown American industries left to betray like we had back in the 40s and 50s and 60's.

Not to mention that Japan and Germany weren't divided into warring factions. They were unified nations, as were the other nations of Europe that benefited from the Marshall Plan.

 

[Caligirl]

try 16 years

28.

No wait, 40.

Or maybe more.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We cannot do for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany.

We don't have many homegrown American industries left to betray like we had back in the 40s and 50s and 60's.

The goal was to get rid of Saddam. That done, it is the responsibility of the Iraqis to make the system work.

After 30 years of Saddam, that would have been hard, which is why I think breaking it in pieces would have been better. The worst nuisances were the ones with no oil anyway.

Anyway, the result now is better than Saddam. As badly screwed up as the place is, we and the Iraqis are both better off with him gone. So is the whole neighborhood. They don't want us there, and we don't want to be there, so going home now is probably a good thing. As bad as the place is, I don't think it is as badly messed up as Chicago, Detroit or New Orleans. Time will tell if they want democracy or not. It is up to them.

As to what happened it Europe.... That was very much dependent on local control We spent like crazy everywhere, but the results were very mixed depending on what went on in the each place. And Japan did very well after we left them on their own. Maybe the same will happen in Iraq.

Though right now, I think Citibank is a better investment. Or GM. YMMV

 

[bk1983]

My friend, who is an ex FBI agent and a big right winger, called me the other night because he is going back to Iraq for a second tour of duty. We were talking about Iraq, and he says, "You know the Iraqis all told me they were better off under Saddam. In fact some of the Iraqis even say, 'Bring back, Saddam!' "

I was actually shocked to hear this. I didn't think it was that bad.

Saddam was the wedge between the Sunni and Shia. He used his 250k plus force to control the rival factions and keep any insurgency down.. His removal is the reason we have the current civil and regional war. Of course the happiest people who supported his removal are Chalabi and the INC who were exiled from Iraq. They fed the US with false intelligence so that Saddam and his party could be removed, and they would be put into power.. All we did was switch one ruling party for another. Iraq is severly split and the citizens have no national pride. Saddam was an evil and murdering psycopath who got everything he deserved, but their is no doubt he knew what it took to control the people. The Sunni and Shia cannot be kept at peace by US forces, their is no way we can equally represent both sides. Therefore one side will always be oppresed creating a vaccum for insurgency.. Like Sec.Gates already stated, any gains in security can be rolled back easily in a short amount of time. The eventual handoff to Iraqis will prove this, ask anybody who has been to Iraq, we dont trust the Iraqi police or the ING.. Too many of them play both sides..

 

[editec]

bullshit---the policies all started years ago---get off your damn partisan bs

Is it partisan to fault those IN CHARGE for the failings that happen on their watch, Dill?

I don't think so.

 

[user_name_guest]

16 years? Who started the war in Iraq? Who organized private corporations to go over to Iraq and help build infrastructure? Who spent all of this money on the war in Iraq?

Not the Clinton administration.

Do you favor people like Saddam Hussein to remain dictator? That's the only positive of the war with Iraq (disposing of him and the government and replacing it with a proper functional one). After all, how many palaces did Saddam built at expense of the Iraqi people?

Why would the United Nation allow such a man, along with countless other dictators found around the world to stay in power? Why is the same United Nation allow genocides to occur without pulling a trigger to stop it? Why were there concentration camp in the 1990s in the watchful eyes of outside media and the UN doing absolutely nothing to curtail it? We are the number one suppliers of funds to the United Nations. Yet they can't keep guys like Saddam Hussein to dictators in Africa and around the world from ruining the lives of millions of people. What is the objective of the UN? Inefficient use of American taxpayers and other factors? If the United Nations actually did its job and prevented scum bags like the one we removed from Baghdad, Saddam, we wouldn't have been in the war in the first place. So now why are we putting money in the United Nations? Because it is our obligations to? If they aren't stopping genocides, dictators, then who is?

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you favor people like Saddam Hussein to remain dictator? That's the only positive of the war with Iraq (disposing of him and the government and replacing it with a proper functional one). After all, how many palaces did Saddam built at expense of the Iraqi people?

Why would the United Nation allow such a man, along with countless other dictators found around the world to stay in power? Why is the same United Nation allow genocides to occur without pulling a trigger to stop it? Why were there concentration camp in the 1990s in the watchful eyes of outside media and the UN doing absolutely nothing to curtail it? We are the number one suppliers of funds to the United Nations. Yet they can't keep guys like Saddam Hussein to dictators in Africa and around the world from ruining the lives of millions of people. What is the objective of the UN? Inefficient use of American taxpayers and other factors? If the United Nations actually did its job and prevented scum bags like the one we removed from Baghdad, Saddam, we wouldn't have been in the war in the first place. So now why are we putting money in the United Nations? Because it is our obligations to? If they aren't stopping genocides, dictators, then who is?

User, for years, Saddam was our SOB. The dictators are allowed to remain because they are some powerful nations SOB. Just as we supported dictators in Central and South America, there are other nations that support dictators in Africa, Asia, and the Mid East for exactly the same reasons, self interest of some of there more powerful citizens.

The UN is essentially toothless because nations like Russia, France, China, and the US, as well as many minor nations, prefer it that way.

 

[indago]

well, if it was, i didn't see it.
thanks for your courtesy. i'm deeply touched.

You mean, like in a colonoscopy?