Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

You won't find this reported in the msm, but one of my friends (and indy reporter) was kidnapped in Iraq, her friend & translator killed. Yeah, this has nothing to do with your latest right-wing whining, but I'm so sick of you all feeling like things aren't getting reported and my FRAKING FRIEND WAS KIDNAPPED IN THE COUNTRY WHERE SHIT IS GOING SO WELL!

Frak YOU!

Posted by Necromancer at January 9, 2006 10:25 AM

You're right, it has nothing to do with this post (which is not in fact "right-wing whining," because I'm not a "right winger"). And it has been reported, or at least I've read about it. But while I deeply sympathize with you if she is indeed your friend, I fail to see your point.

That she wouldn't have been kidnaped if she hadn't gone to Iraq? Surely. But that was her choice--journalists take risks when they go on assignment. That because kidnapings occur in Iraq, that our actions there are a "failure"?

Does not compute. Kidnapings occur in many places, but we don't use them as a measuring stick of whether or not the country is a "success" or "failure" (adjectives which are relative, not absolute). Is it your argument that things are now worse in Iraq, for either Iraqis or the rest of the world, now that Saddam is no longer in power? Few Iraqis, other than the minority of the Sunni minority who benefited from his dictatorship, would agree. Or do their feelings not count? Is the wellbeing of your journalist friend the only thing that matters in assessing the overall situation there? Why not direct your anger at the people who are actually responsible for her situation (her kidnapers)?

So, as I said, ignoring the fact that your (no-doubt heartfelt) angry comment has nothing to do with the subject of this post, I don't get it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2006 10:42 AM

You idiot necrofragger. People are kidnapped and killed in Mexico all the time. Kidnapping is virtually a spectator sport in all of latin america. The mainstream media is dead and rotting. Good riddance.

Posted by Bill at January 9, 2006 10:43 AM

Impeach Bush for not protecting Americans by going to war against Iran and North Korea!!!

Posted by Robert at January 9, 2006 11:03 AM

"How Should History Treat Clinton's Impeachment?"

With a huge yawn...

The real story is that of Bush's impending impeachment.

Posted by New Yorker at January 9, 2006 11:39 AM

The real story is that of Bush's impending impeachment.

Every posting section has to have a comedian, I guess.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2006 11:41 AM

I believed at the time that Clinton should have been removed from office. No one made him put up his hand, swear to tell the truth, and then not do so.

In a similar way, I would like to see the current president impeached. The warrantless domestic surveillance program violates FISA, in my view. I know that the president's defenders think differently, but the charge is a very serious one, and should be calmly and dispassionately adjudicated. Perhaps the Senate will remove him from office, perhaps not. But the administration grabbed power that they had not been given, indeed, had been explicitly prohibited by law from exercising. That, too, is a very big deal.

So, with apologies, I don't think discussing the current president's impeachment is a comic subject. Indeed, I think the stakes are probably much higher. Clinton was charged with perjury over a private misdeed. Bush ought to be held accountable for much more serious actions - alleged violations of federal law that are of the very essence of the separation of powers and the protection of freedoms and immunities for all Americans.

Is this actually likely to occur? At the moment, no. But all presidents have to follow the law, in war and in peace. No exceptions.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at January 9, 2006 12:11 PM

The Clinton impeachment could go down in history as what happens when a bunch of frustrated Republicans, mad because they hadn't thought of this 38 or so years earlier decide to go for broke.
Better out of office by disgrace than a bullet.

Posted by delen at January 9, 2006 12:34 PM

Jane, even disregarding the fact that there's little merit (IMO) to your argument, the notion that a Republican Congress is going to impeach George Bush is laughable.

That said, Clinton should have been impeached (and removed) for his much graver crimes and abuses of power (in addition to the witness tampering and intimidation, and perjury).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2006 12:39 PM

No exceptions, Jane?

I'm always bemused by those who make this sort of sweeping judgment.

SO, FDR should have been impeached, b/c he was violating a host of laws (beginning w/ the various Neutrality Acts that he himself had signed) in aiding the UK in the dark days of World War II before December 7th, is that correct?

Does this also apply to Abraham Lincoln, who high-handedly suspended habeas corpus in the midst of the Civil War?

In fact, it turns out, especially in wartime (not necessarily following a declaration of war, either), Presidents are often choosing between following the law, and protecting the greater national good. Personally, I suspect that it's probably for the better that we are now able to debate the subject as tarnished victors, rather than as halo'd vanquished.

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 9, 2006 12:47 PM

Oh, and Necromancer? As I type this I'm listening to Fox News report on the kidnapped journalist in Iraq. But I guess they don't count as MSM in your mind?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2006 01:38 PM

"That said, Clinton should have been impeached (and removed) for his much graver crimes and abuses of power (in addition to the witness tampering and intimidation, and perjury)."

Such as? Give specific instances and proofs. Sweeping generalizations do not count.

Faux News is part of the MSM? God helps us all! Next, you'll argue that Rush Limbaugh is an impartial judge of events.

Posted by Devil's Advocate at January 9, 2006 02:18 PM

History (if written by Faux News) will record the Clinton impeachment as THE story of the Clinton Presidency. Objective history will show that the first Twin Tower bombers were successfully prosecuted and that the millenium bomber was also caught and prosecuted with no loss of liberty for us as a result. And the budget was balanced. And jobs grew. And incomes accross the economic spectrum grew. And the main-stream media soiled itself discussing what to tell the children. And young George W. wrote a book in which he stated that a commander in chief presidency would garner political capital. And the project for a New American Century articulated that the public would be swayed to support a war of choice, and that it would be easy IF there was a cataclismic event on US soil.

Posted by Laura Strand at January 9, 2006 02:40 PM

"..that he turned down three offers by the Sudanese government to hand over bin Laden;"

..Still beating that dead horse? Is knowledge optional here?

9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5

"Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

Even if the Sudanese "made the offer", it would be highly unlikely the U.S. would deal with them- Sudan was placed on the State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorist activities -in 1992.

Posted by DDT at January 9, 2006 02:44 PM

Strange that the "history professor" would think history will overlook the element of partisan entrapment of a sitting president that occurred...along with the extended partisan pursuit that preceded and motivated it. But then he also claims the MSM tried to cover up the story which is a flat out lie. So what we have here is an idealogue whose wishful thinking is that history will be blind to reality...I don't think so, folks.

Posted by bwise at January 9, 2006 02:51 PM

How interesting that while Clinton tries to spin a legacy after the fact, we're arguing about the central fact of the farce that was his administration: impeachment.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 9, 2006 03:05 PM

Dear oh dear: still ranting about Clinton! How should history treat his presidency? From the pov of the nineties of course!!
Those were the days of 'it's the economy, stupid' and moronic REM-quotes. Fighting terrorism was NOT priority, OBL was not a household name and republicans seemed obsessed with "moral values", which Clinton apparently did not have. Overall verdict however: as far as presidents go, Clinton was fairly good. Intelligent, concerned, charming, able to talk, liked sex (good thing he didn't follow JFK in the medical department) and the desire to stay in power kept him from being ideological rigid. Not bad at all...

ps. from the Netherlands.

Posted by Rik Klaver at January 9, 2006 03:34 PM

Isn't anyone going to acknowledge what DDT pointed out? Make shit up and repeat it enough, you may even convince yourselves.

Hey, did you all know that they pumped TWO QUARTS of semen out of Rod Stewart's stomach?

Posted by Robin at January 9, 2006 03:44 PM

Laura Strand:

And did the Clinton administration also catch the folks who blew up Khobar Towers?

Did they catch the folks who blew up US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya?

Did they catch the folks who blew up the USS Cole?

Did Elian Gonzalez's civil rights get protected?

How about those in the White House Travel Office?

Did the folks at Enron get hurt during the Clinton administration? Did the folks who were part of the dot-com bubble?

And let's not be coy---your references to PNAC and W suggest that Bush let 9-11 happen on purpose. Out w/ it: is that what you believe?

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 9, 2006 03:47 PM

Robin:

What's to deal with? There are claims (dubious, IMO) that the Clinton Administration was offered Osama by the Sudanese.

Mebbe, mebbe not.

But to suggest that the Administration would not take Osama b/c he was being offered by the Sudanese is rather odd. We aided Stalin, the Administration was willing to deal with North Korea. But Osama, who masterminded WTC '93 and embassy bombings, who inspired missile attacks, he is not sufficiently important to deal w/ the Sudanese SOBs?

Do you really think that? Do you think Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, or Bill Clinton, none of whom are fools, were so morally repulsed by Sudan that they wouldn't even take a known terrorist off their hands (IF he was really offered to them)?

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 9, 2006 03:50 PM

Jane,

You may interpret the president's actions as "violating" FISA, but the public doesn't really know what is happening with the NSA and its various signal monitoring programs because the details remain secret. Knowing the details of the monitoring is obviously key to determining if the FISA law was violated or not. So having an definative opinion in this manner looks rather partisan.

Of course monitoring enemy communications is inherently part of executing a war, a power which the president is most assuredly granted in the Constitution. Congress is NOT empowered with the ability to override the inherent powers of the executive confered in the constitution.

Despite the ACLU's best efforts, examples of valid, legal warrant-less searches exist in the USA. Example: HS students can have their lockers searched without warning or warrant. Police may in certain circumstances search your vehicle without a warrant. The specifics of whether a search requires a warrant or not have been worked out over the years through various case law decisions. It is simply incorrect to imply that warrantless searches are unconstitutional or even uncommon.

Do you believe that a warrant was needed for the US Army to intercept Nazi and Japanese communications in WW II? Or phone calls from the US to Japan or Germany in that era? You may be aware that during WWII domestic communications such as letters were routinely monitored and censored without warrants.

Posted by Fred K at January 9, 2006 04:02 PM

President Clinton was a boob. He was handed a gift wrapped present in 1992... both the Senate and the House under Democratic control... and in two short years... blew it. Now the nitwits that love him can talk all they want about his charm, his God-like powers in balancing the budget (that ranks right up there with landing a man on the Moon, doesn't it?), and his way with words... but when he's judged for what he did, to his political party and the nation... well.. he comes up short. As in... given control over the legislative and executive branches and 8 years later, his rivals control them. There's a lesson there... all you have to do is look.

Clinton will rank marginally better than the worst President (he's from Georgia) in the last 100 years.

Posted by Jim Rohrich at January 9, 2006 06:40 PM

It was clear how objective this "history professor" is when he stated that Matt Drudge uncovered the Lewinsky scandal, while the media tried to cover it up to protect the Democrats. Excuse me, but Michael Isikoff uncovered the Lewinsky scandal. The next time Drudge does original reporting will be the first time. Newsweek, not being a blog that can say anything it wants and worry later if it was accurate, was still fact checking an explosive story. Someone, (I suspect Isikoff, who was worried about being scooped) gave the story to Drudge. That's not exactly "breaking" a story. But I realized long ago that many bloggers don't get the difference between "reporting" and "commenting."

As for the media covering up the story to protect the Democrats, what a farce. I guess that's why none of the major media outlets did any reporting on Whitewater. Funny, the only reporting they didn't do was when the Pillsbury report came out exonerating Clinton. Or when Ray's report came out exonerating the Clinton's in the Travel Office affair. Yeah, some cover-up. If historians are accurate, they'll report how a right wing cabal maneuvered the President into a trap, which he admittedly fell into out of his own personal weakness. The story of Ken Starr being selected by Jesse Helms, after having advised the Paula Jones defense team, should make for some interesting reading.

Posted by Chris at January 9, 2006 08:24 PM

In general, I'm going to let the leftist loons rave on in this thread, just for entertainment, but for the record, the Pillsbury report hardly "exonerated" Clinton. Only someone who didn't actually read it, or is unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "exonerate" could believe that. And the Ray Report didn't do so, either.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 9, 2006 08:30 PM

Laura Strand wrote: "Objective history will show that the first Twin Tower bombers were successfully prosecuted and that the millenium bomber was also caught and prosecuted with no loss of liberty for us as a result."

Good trade for the loss of life of 2000+ people when compatriots of the original bombers came back to finish the job. And as Clinton himself admitted, he could have captured OBL on one or two occasions but did not do so.

Posted by Jim C. at January 9, 2006 09:20 PM

Fred K, I have no problem with the executive tapping enemy communications. You're responding to an argument I'm not making. My issue is with the executive tapping communications within the US. To tap those communications, the executive branch must get a warrant. They can get the warrant afterwards, up to 72 hours later. They can get the warrant from a court so compliant that it has denied fewer than half a dozen such requests in its history. I spent some time last week debating these points in another thread.

Rand, I hope you're not including me implicitly in your category of "leftist loons." Ad feminem doesn't seem your style from what I've read here (you can't see me grinning at you but I am). As for impeachment being laughable, I wouldn't go that far. I think it's implausible and that's a shame, but if enough of the GOP leadership is indicted in the current scandal the House might switch sides. A girl can have her little dreams.

More seriously, I do think the character of crimes is very different. Entertain with me the idea for a moment that the president is in fact guilty of orchestrating wiretapping of Americans, and that it's against FISA, and that that's the law that applies. On the one hand you have Clinton's crimes, which involve covering up his private actions, and on the other hand you have Bush's, which involve violating the freedoms of American citizens. Cowardliness or tyranny? Which is the greater crime?

Conservatives should be very concerned about the precedent. This is especially true because there is absolutely no control over who gets to say whether someone is suspected of being an enemy or not. It basically amounts to "Trust Me" on the president's part.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at January 9, 2006 10:45 PM

Ah- for the good old days when "impeachment" was synonomous with "removal from office".......
but we've given the Office of the President more power than it was ever intended to have. I doubt that even a murder conviction could unseat a president these days. Clinton's impeachment should have, at the very least, prevented him from drawing a pension and perks- but no- it's the American Way now, to REWARD incompetency and dishonesty.

Posted by SpaceCat at January 9, 2006 11:17 PM

The professor is probably right, in that the impeachment will be a part of Clinton's story. However I do find it unlikely that they will dwarf all else about his administration.

After all, under Clinton the poor made record gains; the economy soared; Social Security was made fiscally secure, due to Clinton's impressive forethought, in investing the surplus in T-bills; peace was brought to Ireland largely through Clinton's personal involvement (and conservative Catholic Ireland considers Clinton a hero, Lewinsky affair or no); a military involvement in Kosovo without one single American death; and many other hallmarks of Clinton's sheer *competence* as a leader.

We'll see how Bush will be remembered. I'm willing to make a bet with this professor right now: I predict that Bush will be remembered, and the hallmark of his presidency, will be how he responds to circumventing the spirit and the letter of standing law *and* the Consitution itself, in pursuing wireless wiretapping without warrants. When he could have gotten warrants for up to 72 hours after the surveillance began.

But we'll see, won't we?

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 12:52 AM

FYI - the worst president of the past 100 years is not from Georgia. His name is George, and he's is from Texas. He's that guy who can't speak in front of audiences that can't be ordered to applause, and can't speak an unscripted sentence without stumbling by the sixth word.

But seriously. When are you guys going to get tired of making excuses for this man? He's not some common guy you have a beer with. If you tried to have a beer with him, his guards would throw you off his ranch. He was born in Connecticut. He went to Yale. There's no horses on his ranch. I doubt he's ever made his own bed. Which would be fine, if he didn't put up this false everyman image.

The other side of it, is that he's intellectually incurious, and deliberately ignores any information or opinions that go against his wishful thinking. How do you think these things keep happening?

You have drastically lowered the bar for what's acceptable in a President, just to get him in and then deal with his actions - and he and the GOP are laughing at all of you and knocking the bar ever lower.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 12:59 AM

Jim,

In other words, you are not serious about your first paragraph. I glad you recognize how seriously Jimmy Carter hurt the United States.

Posted by Leland at January 10, 2006 05:25 AM

I am sorry but anyone who thinks Bush is a fraction as 'stagflation' 'appeasment' 'malaies' Carter is either smoking crack or mentally deranged. Either that or they did not live thru the late 70's in a conscious state and actually understand what an enormous pile of dog feces the man from Plains, GA truly was.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2006 05:43 AM

Make that "is a fraction as incompetent" and 'malaise'

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2006 05:44 AM

Would not get your hopes up on the Abramoff scandal there Jane. Be careful what you wish for....

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012771.php

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2006 05:50 AM

After all, under Clinton the poor made record gains; the economy soared

All due to the motions put in effect by the Reagan presidency. Clinton was an excellent speaker. He could and still can sway a crowd. He was also the consummate liar, injecting just enough truth to make things fuzzy....the media learned that well. Most importantly, Clinton did NOTHING unless the polls showed it was a good idea for his image. Simply put, Clinton was a first rate huckster. I don't care personally about impeachment or not, but I do care that he soiled the image of the presidency around the world. Did the Repubs have to go after him like that? No, they didn't, but they're power hungry too and they saw an opportunity. Did Clinton have to cheat on his wife and then lie? No, he chose to do that. For me, that's the kicker. He cheated on his wife and showed the world that the president is less a figurehead, than a mortal man. Like the movie The American President said....The White House is the single greatest home court advantage in the world...but thanks to Clinton, its not nearly as great as it used to be.

Posted by Mac at January 10, 2006 05:56 AM

They do this despite the fact that 40 of the 45 members of the Senate Democrat(ic) Caucus have taken money from Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients.

Ha! Ha!

His associates includes people Abramoff once attended banquets with. Yup, if we include people Abramoff has ever met or chatted with then Democratic candidates can be included in that group.

Otherwise powerline is simply lying.

Posted by Bill White at January 10, 2006 07:33 AM

GOP spin on Abramoff is flattened like road kill.

Posted by Bill White at January 10, 2006 07:37 AM

I will not give my Abramoff money back, no way, no how! It's mine, and I'm going to keep it and that's that! Republicans are slime and this proves it. They gave their money back! Only slime would give slimed money back! I'm not slime so I'm keeping my slime!

Posted by Harry Reid at January 10, 2006 07:45 AM

"And the budget was balanced. And jobs grew. And incomes accross the economic spectrum grew..."

Not unless the definition of balance means that we owed more money each year than the year before. The rate of increase in the national debt did go down dramatically and it is customary to give credit to the president so OK but not balanced.
When Clinton became president the US economy was over six months into a recovery. When he left office it was over six months into a recession. It would be equally fair to give the ‘credit’ for this to the same president.

I am not at all happy with the fiscal performance of the current president.

Posted by Frank at January 10, 2006 10:09 AM

Jane,

Fred K, I have no problem with the executive tapping enemy communications. You're responding to an argument I'm not making. My issue is with the executive tapping communications within the US. To tap those communications, the executive branch must get a warrant.
What if the enemy is within the US? What if the enemy is within the US and is a US citizen? Is it more important to spy on the enemy or follow judicial precidents created for misdemenor drug cases?

I understand your point that US citizens (or persons) are treated differently under congressional law and under constitutional law. My contention which you have not addressed is that constitutional law (Article II) gives the president broad war powers that may supercede (at least in times of war) other sections of the constitution. You may not agree, but at least can you acknowledge that there is a question of contention between these two valid constitutional mandates?

Also, I submit that we don't know the facts (domestic or not?) so it is not appropriate to jump to the conclusion that the president has usurped FISA.

More seriously, I do think the character of crimes is very different. Entertain with me the idea for a moment that the president is in fact guilty of orchestrating wiretapping of Americans, and that it's against FISA, and that that's the law that applies. On the one hand you have Clinton's crimes, which involve covering up his private actions, and on the other hand you have Bush's, which involve violating the freedoms of American citizens. Cowardliness or tyranny? Which is the greater crime?

To take your assumptions ad hoc requires ignorance of the war we are fighting and the context it provides for the spying. I can however imagine a scenario where the spying is used in ways that are not part of the war (such as Clinton's misuse of FBI records). That, if shown to be happening, would be a reason for impeachment for any president.

Conservatives should be very concerned about the precedent. This is especially true because there is absolutely no control over who gets to say whether someone is suspected of being an enemy or not. It basically amounts to "Trust Me" on the president's part.

I agree. The issue of oversight is one that should be taken very seriously. I am troubled that those who are manafestly in an oversight position enough to be able to leak information have done so. This is damaging to the program and to US interests. On the otherhand are the official channels for dissent sufficient? -- I don't know.

--Fred

Posted by Fred K at January 10, 2006 10:45 AM

I think we already have a pretty good idea of how Bill Clinton will be remembered by history. Consider this:

On December 31, 1999 ABC News played a piece it put together for their "millenium celebration" (their calendar mistake, not mine) -- The 20th Century Through Radio. In it they played clips of what they considered the most important events of the 20th century. They had the Hindenberg disaster "Oh the humanity", Bobby Thompson's home run "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!", Martin Luther King "I have a dream.", and Neil Armstrong's famous walk "That's one small step for man...one giant leap for mankind."

They also had quotes from important presidents. FDR "We have nothing to fear but fear itself.", JFK "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.", Ronald Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", and Bill Clinton "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

So ABC News defines the Reagan presidency by his winning the Cold War and the Clinton presidency by a blow job in the oval office. How fitting.

I suspect history's judgment will be much the same.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at January 10, 2006 11:05 AM

Let's not leave Ronnie off the list of worst Presidents (although our present boy wonder is stealing the title).

Why is it that Osama thinks America doesn't have the nerve to stay in the fight?
Ronald Reagan.

Cut and ran in Leabanon after the Marine Barracks bombing .

and CUT DEALS WITH ISLAMOFACIST TERRORISTS!!!!!

If you don't think these are big deals (and helped usher in 911), just go back and read that sentence and change Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton.

See how easy it is to see why this guy was such a shitty President?

Posted by Robert at January 10, 2006 11:07 AM

That's right, it has nothing to do with Clinton cutting and running in Mogadishu, or treating the first attack on the World Trade Center as a criminal problem, or doing nothing about Khobar Towers and the Cole. It's all Reagan's fault.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 10, 2006 11:19 AM

All due to the motions put in effect by the Reagan presidency. Clinton was an excellent speaker.

So, all the good that happened under Clinton's administration is due to a Republican.

Even though Clinton deliberately pursued an economic policy that was exactly the opposite of Reagan's famed 'Voodoo Economics' - a term coined by Bush Sr. when he was running against Reagan. Clinton sided against supply-side economics, and figured that maintaining tax revenue and investing in infrastructure and effective social programs would both balance the budget and improve the economy. And the results were very much in line with what he expected - and exactly the opposite of what all the supply-side economics proponents expected.

And by extension, anything bad that happened under Bush's administration is due to a Democrat, Clinton.

I remember their being a lot of GOP noise, towards the end of the 90's, about how Clinton had ruined our military. Yet, a year into Bush's term, with no substantive changes to the military, it shines in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

I wonder, does this mean that Bush is really riding on Clinton's skills?

I wonder - is there anything good now, going on in Bush's administration, that you will credit to Clinton?

Because from here, it honestly seems like this is just explaining away evidence that Clinton can have done well, and not wanting to admit that Bush can do poorly.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 11:41 AM

Well, that's the point, isn't it?

Either leaders are responsible for the country under their leadership, or they are not.

If you're going to blame Bush's problems on Clinton, then it's just as logical to blame Clinton's problems on Bush Sr., and Reagan before him.

With this way of thinking, all we're doing is shifting around the blame onto other administrations. Would this work at our day jobs? Would the previous employee deserve the credit for your good job - or the blame for what you tried that didn't work? No.

Clinton's watch is Clinton's watch. Bush's watch is Bush's watch. There are trailing concerns from administration, it's true. But they are at most influences and trailing details - they don't solely define the course of the policy, over the course of several years.

Clinton had nothing to do with **Bush** letting Osama Bin Laden go - *after* Bin Laden had helped murder over 2,000 Americans, and *after* we had invaded Afghanistan to get Bin Laden.

Ditto for the economy. Bush's fiscal policies are hurting this country's future and present. Clinton's did not.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 11:56 AM

If you're going to blame Bush's problems on Clinton, then it's just as logical to blame Clinton's problems on Bush Sr., and Reagan before him.

I didn't blame Bush's problems on Clinton (though certainly he contributed to some of them--he did after all inherit a popped bubble and recession from him). I was just responding to your wacky notion that Osama bin Laden was all Reagan's fault.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 10, 2006 12:05 PM

I didn't say that you blamed Bush's problems on Clinton. The irony is that, in your response, you proceeded to credit the good economy under Clinton to Bush Sr., and blame the bad economy under Bush Jr. on Clinton. So now, in effect you have done what you said you didn't do...

Also, incidentally, I didn't put forth the "wacky notion that Bin Laden was all Reagan's fault" - that was another poster.

I was pointing out that in any of these cases, the blame or credit for the leadership of countries, when averaged over the years of the leadership, belong solely to the leaders of those periods.

Clinton is responsible for his administration. Bush is responsible for his administration. Any other way of treating things, makes a mockery of accountability.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 02:05 PM

jim,

That was me that mentioned Reagan.

I apologize. I thought you were one of those guys that was against "cut and run".

I've heard of a lot of people who are against that (sometimes, depending on if they're an R or D after their name).

Posted by Robert at January 10, 2006 02:17 PM

S'allgood, no harm no foul.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cut and run' ?

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 02:39 PM

Ditto for the economy. Bush's fiscal policies are hurting this country's future and present. Clinton's did not.

Bull. Clinton brought us into a recession.

Let's not leave Ronnie off the list of worst Presidents.

Yes, let's do, because he was the last president we had that came into office with a set plate of beliefs and did not waver on them. This is why the conservative movement gained so much during his presidency. His ideals did not change to suit the polls...(Clinton). Reagan said what he believed and then told everyone what he was going to do, then did it. The recent show on the greatest americans of all time voted Reagan number one because of his stand on principles that he believed in. He did good things for the country. I won't argue that Clinton may have done good things for the country, but I will argue that it's now worthless when weighed against the damage he did to the political power the President of the United States used to wield around the world. The damage Clinton did to the idea of the President is the legacy I see him leaving, and it saddens me. Bush is not doing the best job of president either, but at least he hasn't harmed the office. The Oval Office used to inspire the country until Clinton's time renamed it the Oral Office.

Posted by Mac at January 10, 2006 03:05 PM

[Reagan] was the last president we had that came into office with a set plate of beliefs and did not waver on them.

Well, the facts are that Reagan **did** waver on his beliefs. In fact, he went much further than waver on them...he utterly reneged on them.

For one example, Reagan said publicly and repeatedly that he would not negotiate with terrorists.

And Reagan not only negotiated with terrorists - he sold them advanced military weapon systems!!! To Iran, the enemy that had sworn to kill us. This is the matter of public record, known as Iran-Contra. And in fact, it's only part of what the Reagan administration did. In contravention of current law, Constitutional law, and Reagan's own promises to the American people.

As for Clinton's damage to presidential prestige - the fact is that around the rest of the world, people don't really care about his illicit affair. That's simply fact. Bush is a much less popular president in the world than Clinton, in any international poll you care to find.

It might be more comforting to think of things differently, but facts are simply facts.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 04:29 PM

And, actually, the same for Clinton's approval in his own country, as opposed to Bush. Clinton **never** had more people disapproving of his job performance, at any point, than Bush does now.

And when Clinton was impeached, his approval ratings actually went **up** - because most of the American people saw the impeachment as nothing more than prosecution for a technicality. You and I can disagree about whether he was impeached for something relevant or not - but the American people as a whole approved him and his job performance, even with Lewinsky.

Faith in the presidency is now at it's lowest ebb in decades - thanks to the person who is president, and no one else.

Posted by jim at January 10, 2006 04:32 PM

"And, actually, the same for Clinton's approval in his own country, as opposed to Bush. Clinton **never** had more people disapproving of his job performance, at any point, than Bush does now."

Do your Homework, Clinton Hit 43%. Bush is averaging a few points above that now, he is around the low mark for Reagan now.

"Ditto for the economy. Bush's fiscal policies are hurting this country's future and present. Clinton's did not."

Yep, 4+% economic growth just sucks donkey balls doesn't it?

"And when Clinton was impeached, his approval ratings actually went **up** - because most of the American people saw the impeachment as nothing more than prosecution for a technicality."

On this we agree, I suggest you contact your representative and urge them to go on record supporting impeachment, it will do wonders for the Democratic party, HONEST!
"

Posted by at January 10, 2006 04:58 PM

^ Mine

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 10, 2006 05:00 PM

It will take good teaching, indeed, to explain why [Clinton's] laundering campaign money through sources of a hostile Chinese government, [did not deserve impeachment]

I thought this old chestnut died after is was revealed that two of the investigating FBI officers were
a) sleeping with one of the main witnesses, a Republican fundraiser who;
b) turned out to be a spy for the People Republic.

Alas, the FBI screwed up the resulting investigation.

Posted by Duncan Young at January 10, 2006 10:00 PM

Heh, this much talk about the sins of Clinton and not one mention of his cotnributions to the nuclear programs of China (Loral supercomputers) and North Korea (light water reactors).

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at January 10, 2006 11:36 PM

Rand Simberg, "I am not a right winger".

Rand Simber's blogroll, "I am definitely a right winger."

Rand Simberg, in the middle of the Bush Catastrophe, "CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!"

Rand Simberg, lying weasely f*cktard.

Posted by jerry at January 11, 2006 02:04 AM

...the FBI screwed up the resulting investigation.

Funny, that happened a lot during the Clinton years...

And Jerry, I'm not sure how you can tell what "wings" someone has from a blogroll. I never said anything about (nor particularly cared about) bl**jobs.

Gosh, this has been a nostalgic thread, rehashing all the misleading White House/DNC talking points from the nineties.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2006 04:28 AM

Hey Jerry, you must have sniffed a lot of airplane glue to kill that many brain cells. It sucks to be poor dysfunctional you.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 05:30 AM

Who, besides me, cares that he had an affair? Immaterial at best. It was the resulting cover and outright lying like a five year old that damaged the symbol of the Presidency. That isn't prestige, its an image, which was then tarnished. Oh, and I never said a thing about popularity either. I have stated that Bush is not doing the greatest job in my opinion, but at least the intangible part isn't suffering. There are more countries wary of US power than there were at the end of the Clinton era.

It might be more comforting to think of things differently, but facts are simply facts.

Yes they are, but applying facts to intangibles doesn't always work. There is nothing simple about the image the President portrays to countries around the world. When it is said that the President is the leader of the free world, that's an intangible that cannot be measured by fact. It can be measured by the authority the office projects around the world and it is lessened after the administration that showed it was more concerned with being a playboy than being a leader.
That's what it comes down to. Clinton couldn't lead his way out of a well-lit room. He can certainly speak well, but there was never anything backing it up. Reagan was a leader, despite everything you'll dig up to the contrary. Every administration has a "scandal" because the other side will find something, that's one of your simple facts. There are intangibles within the office and the people that hold it. Reagan and Bush Jr have the intangibles of being people in a tough office trying to do what they think is best for the people. Clinton had the intangible of being a person in a tough office trying to do what was best for himself and his image.

Posted by Mac at January 11, 2006 05:49 AM

GOP spin on Abramoff is flattened like road kill.

Bill, I'll see your Kos and raise you actual news reporters.

Funny how, of the five "first tier" lawmakers being scrutinized in a "Republican scandal," three are Democrats.

Spin away.

Posted by at January 11, 2006 07:17 AM

GOP spin on Abramoff is flattened like road kill.

Bill, I'll see your Kos and raise you actual news reporters.

Funny how, of the five "first tier" lawmakers being scrutinized in a "Republican scandal," three are Democrats.

Spin away.

Posted by McGehee at January 11, 2006 07:18 AM

The Washington Times? Heh!

I will never offer DailyKos as "actual news reporters" - - they are rabidly partisan, hands down agree, no argument here - - but they did link to the actual CNN video tape. Watch the clip of Dean and Blitzer for yourself.

But the Washington Times?

Sources inside the BUSH Justice Department says they are looking into possible Abramoff links to Democratic politicians? Yup, and OJ is still looking for the real killer, too. :-)

There are plenty of corrupt Democrats and I do not assert either party is inherently more or less corrupt than the other, but Abramoff's new film, Kickback Mountain has an all-GOP cast.

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2006 11:57 AM

Yes they are, but applying facts to intangibles doesn't always work.

That's true, it's not perfect. It just works better than any other methods we have of figuring out the world.

When it is said that the President is the leader of the free world, that's an intangible that cannot be measured by fact. It can be measured by the authority the office projects around the world and it is lessened after the administration that showed it was more concerned with being a playboy than being a leader.

So you believe that a leader named Clinton having an affair, is worse for the prestige of an office among our allies, than a leader named Reagan, who completely disregards the best interests, desires or intentions of his allies by arming a hostile terrorist nation?

I'm going to repeat the last statement.

Reagan SECRETLY SOLD MILITARY WEAPON SYSTEMS TO A HOSTILE TERRORIST NATION THAT SWORE THEY WERE GOING TO DESTROY US.

And why did he do this?

To circumvent Congress, IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Don't you get it?? That's ****REALLY BAD****.

That's your prerogative to believe that intangibles are more important than these facts. But there isn't any difference between belief in intangibles without facts, and blind faith.

And having blind faith in leaders, is like putting nitro and glycerin in a can and then kicking it.

Clinton couldn't lead his way out of a well-lit room.

Maybe he couldn't lead *you* out of a well-lit room. But as a leader of the free world, he did just fine. I cite his intervention in Kosovo, achieved without one US soldier's death, and the subsequent gratefulness of all of Europe; and his direct involvement in the Ireland peace process, as two examples of his effective world leadership.

He can certainly speak well, but there was never anything backing it up. Reagan was a leader, despite everything you'll dig up to the contrary.

Here you appear to be saying, that you'll never believe any facts that contradict your theory.

That's not a good way to look at leaders.

Every administration has a "scandal" because the other side will find something, that's one of your simple facts.

OK. Then, at worst, Bill Clinton is Reagan's equal - because they're both 'scandals'.

But somehow Clinton is worse, even though you are refusing to cite facts for this opinion.

There are intangibles within the office and the people that hold it. Reagan and Bush Jr have the intangibles of being people in a tough office trying to do what they think is best for the people. Clinton had the intangible of being a person in a tough office trying to do what was best for himself and his image.

Clinton as a president produced results. Bush Jr. is not producing those results.

Actions speak much louder than words ever will. And results speak much louder than intangibles.

I can understand why it may be personally comfortable for you to feel that Clinton was horrible and Reagan and Bush Jr. were perfectly awesome - regardless of facts.

But if a man was trying to sell you a used car, and said that it just intangibly was better than a car being sold by someone else, would you believe him? Or would you ask for facts?

Why then are you treating the leaders of this country any different? How much more of an effect on your future and the world's, is a leader?

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 12:26 PM

Do your Homework, Clinton Hit 43%. Bush is averaging a few points above that now, he is around the low mark for Reagan now.

OK - source?

Yep, 4+% economic growth just sucks donkey balls doesn't it?

It does if
a) you're poor - fourth straight year of increase in poverty,
b) you're middle-class and don't want a McJob
c) you want to go to college
d) you like a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, rather than mortgaging your kids future
e) you don't like China having our country by the balls by propping up our dollar

But the richest people in America are making more money right now off the rest of us, at the expense of all our children's futures. Whoopie.

On this we agree, I suggest you contact your representative and urge them to go on record supporting impeachment, it will do wonders for the Democratic party, HONEST!

I will be happy too.

Because unfortunately for Bush, he has some real crimes committed in office to answer for. And not just his weaselly little lies, like saying he will fire anyone involved in revealing Plame's probe, and then reneging like a coward.

But warrantless wiretaps when warrants are readily available, just because he thinks the President should have powers not in the Constitution.

Bring it. It'll make him just a bit more like Nixon, but without the brains or ability to speak in complete sentences.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 12:39 PM

Do your Homework, Clinton Hit 43%. Bush is averaging a few points above that now, he is around the low mark for Reagan now.

FYI. Just checked the polls, and Bush Jr. is at 38%.

Source:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=267

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 01:33 PM

I cite his intervention in Kosovo, achieved without one US soldier's death.

Good example...go into a country where crimes are being committed against the people....sort of like...say...Iraq.

and his direct involvement in the Ireland peace process

Which was wrapping up anyway. I will agree that his ability at speaking helped seal the deal, but IMHO he didn't DO much more than that.

But somehow Clinton is worse, even though you are refusing to cite facts for this opinion.

I did mention before that facts do not always support intangibles.

I can understand why it may be personally comfortable for you to feel that Clinton was horrible and Reagan and Bush Jr. were perfectly awesome - regardless of facts.

I can understand why you continue to say that I feel Bush Jr is awesome, when I stated that he's not doing a smash up job in my opinion. I only say that he has not further damaged the ideal of The President like Clinton did.

But if a man was trying to sell you a used car, and said that it just intangibly was better than a car being sold by someone else, would you believe him? Or would you ask for facts?

Not a good example, cars are not alive. Besides, the intangibles behind a used car salesman....need I say more?

Why then are you treating the leaders of this country any different?

Because the leaders of our country are not the same as used car salesmen.

How much more of an effect on your future and the world's, is a leader?

Did you really ask that? How much more is my life affected by world leaders? The leader of Iraq disregards UN resolutions and gets reprisals that affect my life.....Your aforementioned example of Kosovo where US troops went in, affect my life. The leaders of the countries of the world affect our life every day. In many ways....intangibly

Posted by Mac at January 11, 2006 01:51 PM

Reagan SECRETLY SOLD MILITARY WEAPON SYSTEMS TO A HOSTILE TERRORIST NATION THAT SWORE THEY WERE GOING TO DESTROY US.

And when all was said and done, he came on national television and told everyone what he'd done and that he thought the reasons were right.

After Clinton's scandal, he lied, lied, tried to redifine a two letter word, and lied some more. What Reagan did was not right, but he owned up to it, granted it was after the commission convicted North and Poindexter. But he owned up to it. Clinton still denies, denies, and denies.

Posted by Mac at January 11, 2006 02:01 PM

Good that he owned up to it. That's a good mark in his favor.

But if a man robbed from his company, lies about it for months, is finally caught, and then owns up to it once he was caught, and doesn't even return the money or further help the investigation, would you say he was a good employee? No.

Then why does Reagan's apologizing for ***breaking the law as a leader***, to SELL WEAPONS SYSTEMS TO OUR SWORN ENEMY, make him a good leader??

Clinton still denies, denies, and denies.

What, Clinton denies that he slept with Lewinsky now?

I haven't seen that quote.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 02:17 PM

No, he continues to deny his crimes--perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, intimidating witnesses, etc.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2006 02:20 PM

"Do your Homework, Clinton Hit 43%. Bush is averaging a few points above that now, he is around the low mark for Reagan now.

FYI. Just checked the polls, and Bush Jr. is at 38%.

Source:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=267
"

How about picking a poll from a reputable firm that actually came close to accuratly predicting the outcome of the last election.

I used to joke they called it Pew because it stank. Considering how far off they were in November 2004, It would seem I was right.

Yep, 4+% economic growth just sucks donkey balls doesn't it?

Slip Japan in place of China and that is the same old shit I have heard since Reagan was president.

I'll give you moonbats this, you are boringly consistant in your spin and disinformation.

Posted by at January 11, 2006 02:24 PM

No, he continues to deny his crimes--perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, intimidating witnesses, etc.

And still thinks "is" has more than one meaning.

Reagan couldn't further help the investigation because it was already done. He couldn't return the money because he didn't have it.

But if a man lied to his employees, intimidated his rivals like a mob chief, tampered with evidence in a case against him....would you call him a good employee? No.

Posted by Mac at January 11, 2006 02:25 PM

I cite his intervention in Kosovo, achieved without one US soldier's death.

Good example...go into a country where crimes are being committed against the people....sort of like...say...Iraq.

By all means, let's compare the two situations.

Kosovo - invited by our allies. Not one soldier dead. All objectives made clear beforehand, and achieved. Soldiers brought back on time. Budget remains solvent.

Iraq - against the wishes of allies we've had for over 50 years. 2,000 + soldiers dead, some avoidably due to armor we already have not being shipped to them. The war to add upwards of 2 TRILLION dollars to our budget, with no end in sight.

But you say Bush Jr. is a better leader.

and his direct involvement in the Ireland peace process

Which was wrapping up anyway. I will agree that his ability at speaking helped seal the deal, but IMHO he didn't DO much more than that.

Your opinion is your opinion. In Ireland they think differently. They don't just have opinion, but direct experience.

Right. Well, all opinion polls nationally and internationally say different; all ways of measuring job performance say different.

Because the leaders of our country are not the same as used car salesmen.

The leaders of this country are politicians.

ALL of them.

And politicians are EXACTLY like care salesmen. They want power, and have made pursuing it their life's work. And they want to convince you to give it to them.

Reagan was a car salesman. Clinton was a car salesman. Bush is a car salesman. FDR was a car salesman.

Did you really ask that? How much more is my life affected by world leaders? ...The leaders of the countries of the world affect our life every day. In many ways....intangibly

That exponentially exploding debt is not intangible. It will be paid by us, and our children, at the cost of our collective future.

Those soldiers' lives overseas are not intangible. Many could have been saved if Bush had acted like the decisive leader in his PR, and gotten them the armor that they needed.

Those dead in New Orleans, because Bush appointed a proven incompetent with no experience to head FEMA, are not intangible.

But you continue to see Bush Jr. as a better leader than Clinton, intangibly. No matter what facts are presented. Perhaps because he makes you feel good.

Just like a good car salesmen.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 02:34 PM

No, he continues to deny his crimes--perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, intimidating witnesses, etc.

Really?

I thought he wasn't actually charged with anything.

I thought that the impeachment Clinton faced, was for testimony that was in a trial which was dismissed.

Please show what Clinton was actually charged and convicted in a court of law, and then please show me the quote where he denies that conviction.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 02:37 PM

Reagan couldn't further help the investigation because it was already done.

Wrong again, twice.

He could have helped the investigation, by opening up his papers and internal processes. He did not.

He could have helped clear things up afterwards, by opening his presidential papers to the public, as most presidents do - and which Clinton has done, fully.

Not only did Reagan not do this, but Bush Jr. changed the law when he got in, so that Reagan's papers will remain sealed indefinitely.

Do you feel that hiding your actions from the public, the hallmark of good leadership?

He couldn't return the money because he didn't have it.

True. And once he broke the law, he couldn't unbreak it either.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 02:42 PM

I'll give you moonbats this, you are boringly consistant in your spin and disinformation.

I'll give you this, you are boringly resistant to facts and logical argument.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 02:44 PM

I thought he wasn't actually charged with anything.

He was charged with all those things. Go read the articles of impeachment.

Please show what Clinton was actually charged and convicted in a court of law, and then please show me the quote where he denies that conviction.

He wasn't charged in a court of law, because he was president. Instead, there was a sham trial in the Senate with no live witnesses, with a political outcome.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of this strange comment. There was more than ample evidence of Mr. Clinton's guilt presented in the impeachment proceedings and articles. OJ denies that he killed his wife. Do you think that he's innocent?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2006 02:54 PM

"I'll give you this, you are boringly resistant to facts and logical argument."

Only the pulled from your ass kind. Try some actual real world non-Kos, non-moveon non-made up facts. And that 'Logic' thing in your posts you are referring to? I hate to tell you but it isn't what the rest of us in the real world of energy and matter call 'Emotion'. I think you are confusing the latter for the former.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 03:00 PM

"But you continue to see Bush Jr. as a better leader than Clinton, intangibly. No matter what facts are presented. Perhaps because he makes you feel good."

A textbook case of 'Transferrence'.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 03:04 PM

He wasn't charged in a court of law, because he was president.

Being President, in no way means that you can't be charged for crimes in a court of law. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't be, once you're no longer president. So that doesn't work.

OJ denies that he killed his wife. Do you think that he's innocent?

As you just said previously, Clinton wasn't charged in a court of law. OJ was. And OJ lost in the civil trial, also.

Yet there wasn't enough evidence to even bring Clinton into a civil trial - all of it was dismissed.

Ugly facts once again ruining your lovely theories.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 03:14 PM

Only the pulled from your ass kind. Try some actual real world non-Kos, non-moveon non-made up facts.

Please list these facts that I have posted, and your proof that they are made up.

And that 'Logic' thing in your posts you are referring to? I hate to tell you but it isn't what the rest of us in the real world of energy and matter call 'Emotion'. I think you are confusing the latter for the former.

Fine. Prove it with logic, then.

Posted by jim at January 11, 2006 03:18 PM

For the record, I believe MY snark at our esteemed President has been calm and civil compared to a few others in this thread. Just call me "Alan Colmes"

Posted by Bill White at January 11, 2006 03:27 PM

"Please list these facts that I have posted, and your proof that they are made up."

Well, first you have to actually post some facts and not kool-aid induced psychotropic delusions.

"Fine. Prove it with logic, then."

You are the one making assertions, it is your job to prove them, not mine to refute them.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 03:28 PM

Being President, in no way means that you can't be charged for crimes in a court of law. And it certainly doesn't mean you can't be, once you're no longer president. So that doesn't work.

Are you as profoundly ignorant of the Constitution as this statement implies?

The president can't be brought up for criminal charges, because he is himself the supreme enforcer of the law of the land. The Attorney General reports to him. This (among other things) is why the Founders put the impeachment clause in the founding document--as a means of last resort when the president himself turned out to be a criminal.

He wasn't charged once out of office, probably because a) the Bush administration wanted to set a "new tone in Washington" (and put the ugliness of the Clinton administration behind it) and b)after the Susan McDougal case, it was clear that it would be futile, and impossible to get a conviction, regardless of the level of evidence, because it would only take a single Clinton-worshiping moron to hang the jury.

You didn't answer the question. Did you think that OJ was innocent before the civil case (which didn't find him criminally guilty, just legally liable)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2006 05:15 PM

But Rand,

The President CAN be charged in court while he is serving!

It is a fact because Jim made it up right here on the interweb so it must be true! Don't confuse Jim with that emotional ole Constution!

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 05:49 PM

The President CAN be charged in court while he is serving!

There is no precedent for it. The Supreme Court ruled that he can be subject to a civil suit while serving (also a first for a president--thanks, Bill!), but they were silent on the issue of criminal charges.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 11, 2006 06:50 PM

Rand,

I was being sarcastic. I was making a point about Jim and the fallability of his 'facts'!

I know that Articles of Impeachment are the equal to a grand jury indictment for the Prez and that it then moves to the Senate for Trial.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 11, 2006 07:34 PM

Wow. You spend a couple of days performing surgery and everyone gets all grumpy while you're away.

Minds are seldom changed by incivility. Just saying.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at January 11, 2006 10:09 PM

That exponentially exploding debt is not intangible. It will be paid by us, and our children, at the cost of our collective future.

Just like the exponentially exploding debt from the Reagan administration was paid by the children? Debt under Reagan went sky-high, because it was needed to get things moving. That debt was taken care of through the Reagan administration fiscal plan that carried through the Clinton years into a fiscal plus instead of a deficit.

The leaders of this country are politicians.

ALL of them.

Wow, aren't we a little cynical? I don't believe that statement for a minute. I agree that are those that are power hungry politicians, but to say ALL is just being an alarmist. Oh, did you mean that conservative leaders are all politicians and the dems are not?

Those dead in New Orleans, because Bush appointed a proven incompetent with no experience to head FEMA, are not intangible.

That is the biggest pile of bull crap you've written yet. Those dead in New Orleans are the direct responsibility of the mayor and the governor not learning from the past. Ivan came through and did they re-assess their disaster plan? No they didn't. The fed was there offering help, but because of laws passed by the La. government, was not allowed to act for a certain time frame unless invites, WHICH THEY WERE NOT, thanks to the governor. The incompetants were elected into office by your friends and as normal liberals, something happens and suddenyl EVERYONE ELSE is at fault and your a simple victim.

Right. Well, all opinion polls nationally and internationally say different; all ways of measuring job performance say different.

Maybe, but since I was talking about the ideal, the image that is the President, you're fishing in the wrong water again. Like I stated when this all started, its an intangible that cannot be measured by factual evidence. This obviously distresses you in that there are things in this world not dictated by logic. My mother is a foreign national by the way, and her home country is currently at 52% approval of Bush Jr and their mostly a Socialist government.

Posted by Mac at January 12, 2006 06:49 AM

That debt was taken care of through the Reagan administration fiscal plan that carried through the Clinton years into a fiscal plus instead of a deficit.

Um, no. I know that you'd like to believe that, intangibly, and in the absence of all facts. But, as I said upstream on this page, Clinton pursued the exact opposite of Reagan's taxcut-and-spend Voodoo Economics. And it worked.

I can find Clinton's exact quote for this, if you like.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 11:54 AM

What he said.

Furthermore, you ignore the other part of my argument - that there is no reason why a President can't be charged with crimes once he's **left** the office.

Hence you have no evidence for any comparison of unfounded charges Clinton, and substantive charges against OJ, which were proved against OJ in a civil suit.

It's crazy that I even had to argue that point in the first place. But there you go.

Here's the rest of Mac's argument, :

a) jim's facts and logic suck.

b) I don't have to prove that they suck. It's up to jim to prove that they don't suck. He has to show more evidence, and I don't have to show any, and I want my dolly right now.

c) anyway, intangibles are much more important than facts anyway. so really, all facts suck. It's only coincidence that jim's facts and logic in particular are the ones that disprove my theories.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:10 PM

Furthermore, you ignore the other part of my argument - that there is no reason why a President can't be charged with crimes once he's **left** the office.

I didn't ignore it. I explained why he wasn't charged. It wasn't for lack of evidence.

Hence you have no evidence for any comparison of unfounded charges Clinton, and substantive charges against OJ, which were proved against OJ in a civil suit.

There is a plethora of evidence to justify charges against Clinton. I don't understand the bizarre logic that thinks that evidence doesn't exist until formal charges are brought.

And I don't know why you continue to come back to this post, like a dog to its vomit. I doubt if there are many people reading it at this point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 12, 2006 12:15 PM

The leaders of this country are politicians.

ALL of them.

Wow, aren't we a little cynical? I don't believe that statement for a minute.

Call me cynical if you like. But call the Founding Fathers cynical as well. The Founding Fathers were not at all about faith in our leaders. They had come through a tyranny, and they KNEW that corruptible, fallible human beings cannot be trusted to do good with no checks on their power.

So they set up the Constitution, to balance the power of government and leaders against itself.

I agree that are those that are power hungry politicians, but to say ALL is just being an alarmist.

Everyone in politics is a politician.

Anyone who is successful in politics at the STATE level, let alone the national level, has had to make deals in order to get there. And they've had to get good at selling themselves, and convincing people they can be believed in.

That doesn't mean that they are all trying to cheat you, necessarily. But it does mean that you can't tell a cheat from an honest salesman, just by how they look or how they make you feel. That's intangibles. You need facts in order to make an informed decision. Not basing a decision on facts is straight-up irresponsible.

Oh, did you mean that conservative leaders are all politicians and the dems are not?

No, no, no. All politicians, GOP, Democrat, Independent, what have you.

That's why you have to look at the facts, and not just take someone's word for it when they seem like someone you can trust.

Think about it. A leader has power to help or hurt your country, your future, your children's future. He is trying to sell you something. If you just take him at his word, you are setting yourself up for trouble.

Unless you know someone personally, or through at most 2 degrees of separation, you have to look at the price tag, you can't just trust what people say, regardless of who they are.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:20 PM

My mother is a foreign national by the way, and her home country is currently at 52% approval of Bush Jr and their mostly a Socialist government.

Why bring this up, then, if you consider it an intangible?

By the way, how well did your mom's country think of Clinton?

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:21 PM

Those dead in New Orleans are the direct responsibility of the mayor and the governor not learning from the past....re-assess their disaster plan...The fed was there offering help...The incompetants were elected into office by your friends and as normal liberals, something happens and suddenyl EVERYONE ELSE is at fault and your a simple victim.

Whatever.

Bush partied on his playtime ranch while people died.

He's supposed to be a decisive, take charge leader. He is the Fed. Yet he did absolutely nothing while US Citizens drowned waiting for help. Did nothing about the Superdome. Had a Naval hospital ship with empty beds waiting in the harbor, for the Pres to give the OK, which never came.

It is the Fed's authority and entire purpose to do what state and local cannot. If Bush had acted decisively to the limit of his ability, and State and Local authorities hadn't, and this disaster had occurred, then you might have an argument.

But State and Local authorities not doing their jobs, does not excuse Bush not doing **anything** while US citizens drown.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:32 PM

I didn't ignore it. I explained why he wasn't charged. It wasn't for lack of evidence.

You haven't explained why he hasn't been charged since then, in either a criminal or civil lawsuit.

Impeachment is a separate process than a criminal or civil trial.

Keep dodging if you like. Just don't think I won't call you on it.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:35 PM

And I don't know why you continue to come back to this post, like a dog to its vomit. I doubt if there are many people reading it at this point.

I continue to come back here, because I'm just fascinated.

What's your reason?

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 12:37 PM

You haven't explained why he hasn't been charged since then, in either a criminal or civil lawsuit.

Yes, I have. I'm sorry you're so challenged in comprehending English.

I continue to come back here, because I'm just fascinated.

What's your reason?

It's my web site. I get an email every time you barf up another one. I don't like nonsense and historical revisionism to stand unchallenged on it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 12, 2006 12:43 PM

Everyone in politics is a politician.

So this makes them ALL power hungry...got it, okay.

Yes, you do need facts for an informed decision, but I never said anything about informed decisions. I said Clinton damaged the image of the presidency. Any time a group of people went to the White House, they could be painted as in awe of the power wielded in that room. Now, its more likely that someone asks, "Isn't this where that president had oral sex?" Damage done. There are no facts here, just the interpretation of the image of the President being tarnished due to Clinton's irreponsibility within the office of President.

Bush partied on his playtime ranch while people died.

So, your idea of partying is calling the head of federal agencies to try to find a way to force aid past the Louisiana law. FEMA was not allowed access to the site until a certain amount of time passed. The administration tried to circumvent that, but were turned away repeatedly. That was reported on the news...once. It was never heard again because that would look like Bush tried to help and the media can't have that.

It never came because no federal agency is allowed to assess a disaster site by Louisiana law for at least 48 hours. The Superdome problem also started with the failed disaster plan of the Louisiana government. Their plan never took into consideration that the dome could be damaged as severly as it was. I suppose that the buses that just sat there and did nothing was Bush's fault too? Yet another glaring example of the incompetence in the leadership of the site.

Bush did act decisively, but was not allowed to send aid because FEMA was turned away repeatedly by Louisiana law.

But State and Local authorities not doing their jobs, does not excuse Bush not doing **anything** while US citizens drown.

It would not excuse it if he had done nothing, but he did, so what's the Louisiana govt's excuse?

Here's the rest of Mac's argument, :

a) jim's facts and logic suck.

Not correct. I said that facts do not apply to intangibles. You keep a plethora of facts coming, but none of them apply. Its your problem, not mine, that logic doesn't apply to all things.

b) I don't have to prove that they suck. It's up to jim to prove that they don't suck. He has to show more evidence, and I don't have to show any, and I want my dolly right now.

I don't have to prove intangibles, because facts do not support them in all cases. I never said you have to show evidence. You are the one exploding with facts and not allowing yourself to see that logic does not apply to intangibles all the time. As for the dolly comment...I must be annoying you to the point of distraction if your becoming as childish as Clinton's, "That depends on what is, is."

c) anyway, intangibles are much more important than facts anyway. so really, all facts suck. It's only coincidence that jim's facts and logic in particular are the ones that disprove my theories.

Intangibles are not more important than facts, however they are important to recognize, which you seem not to be able to do. Again, your problem, not mine. Facts don't suck, they're great, when they apply. And you haven't disproved my theory at all.

By the way, how well did your mom's country think of Clinton?

The latter days of his administration rode at about 36-41%.

Posted by Mac at January 12, 2006 01:54 PM

It's my web site. I get an email every time you barf up another one. I don't like nonsense and historical revisionism to stand unchallenged on it.

Same here. It appears that we disagree on what nonsense and historical revisionism are. I guess we'll be here for a while then.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 05:29 PM

Well, here's the deal with intangibles:

I feel that Bush is intangibly a horrible president who has disgraced the office of the President around the world. He's done this by weaselling out of his original promise to fire anyone involved in blowing Plame's cover.

I feel that this is intangibly worse than Clinton's lie, because Clinton lied about his personal life, and Bush lied about something he would do as President - thus showing that he had no integrity when it came to the execution of his job.

I present no other facts for this.

Do you accept my argument based on intangibles?

I expect no.

Therefore any useful discussion from differing points of view must proceed from facts and with logic.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 05:41 PM

And also, Mac, you stated that my facts were made up. I note that you continue to weasel out of any proof for this statement.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 05:44 PM

Oops, Mac - my apologies. That was 'Mike Puckett' who said that.

It's long thread; just trying to stay clear on it.

Posted by jim at January 12, 2006 05:46 PM

"And also, Mac, you stated that my facts were made up. I note that you continue to weasel out of any proof for this statement."

It is incumbent upon you to support you assertions, it is not incumbant upon me to disprove a negative.

Strong clains require strong supporting evidence. Rand backs his up with strong evidence, you throw out a bunch of glittering generalities and expect us to accept them at face value. This ain't DU and we haven't taken the Kool-aid that disables our higher cognitive functions. You don't get a free pass on this stuff here, you have to work for it.

You make gratutious assertions with no serious supporting evidence. All that is incumbant upon myself is to respond in kind.

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 12, 2006 06:16 PM

Well, here's the deal with intangibles:

Now you get the picture! Congratulations Jim! The first two words prove that you can understand intangibles. That's the thing with intangibles...they're mostly feelings, which usually cannot be supported by facts. Now grant me the ability to disagree because I don't feel the same way.

My problem with Clinton's lie was not because it was about his personal life. My problem was he continued to lie instead of just saying, "Yes, I did it, I'm sorry."

I present no other facts for this.

Good

Do you accept my argument based on intangibles?

Absolutely

I expect no.

Is that a fact? :)

Therefore any useful discussion from differing points of view must proceed from facts and with logic.

Let logic go, let your feelings out for a stroll now and then. Thanks for the discussion though Jim, I'll just forget the dolly comment as a momentary lapse.

Posted by Mac at January 13, 2006 05:55 AM

Thought you all might like an outsider's view of this thread from someone who is _tangibly_ qualified to remark on it (PhD from Harvard, works daily with basic issues of logic and rhetoric):

All three major defenders of the president (Mac, Rand, and Mike Puckett) provide clear examples of irrelevant and fallacious argumentation. The most egregious of these involves their unwillingness to respond to Jim's clearly stated and linked facts in kind. Instead, they simply refuse to credit his information at all and then, paradoxically, demand that he provide more of it. If this were a courtroom, this trio would be cited for contempt and have their licenses revoked.

Sorry if that stings, but any intelligent reader, right or left, can see this. If, as I trust, these three are interested in arriving at some kind of communicable truth about their political positions, they ought to use verifiable facts and consistent logic to make their points.

Posted by YoloMike at January 13, 2006 03:35 PM

Absent specific examples in which I did this, it's hard to take this seriously. I'm sure that we could find some other person who claims to be unbiased with PhD from some other prestigious university who'd say exactly the opposite.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 13, 2006 04:00 PM

"Thought you all might like an outsider's view of this thread from someone who is _tangibly_ qualified to remark on it (PhD from Harvard, works daily with basic issues of logic and rhetoric):"

Rand,

I find it laughable that a supposed 'Harvard PhD' master of logic and rhetoric opens his remarks with a self-indulgant 'appeal to authority' fallacy. I learned better than that the first week in the high school debate club.

Sorry if that stings YoloMike, but any intelligent reader can see thru such a cheap stunt........

But please, keep on digging that hole.....

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 13, 2006 04:36 PM

The Doc says: All three major defenders of the president (Mac, Rand, and Mike Puckett) provide clear examples of irrelevant and fallacious argumentation.

I would hope that a Piled Higher and Deeper would understand the point of the discussion I was trying to make. But then again, perhaps your doctorate did not include simple reading. I defended the image of The President.

The most egregious of these involves their unwillingness to respond to Jim's clearly stated and linked facts in kind.

Simply put...again...my discussion was based on intangibles that cannot always be measured by fact. When Jim posted how he felt, I applauded him in seeing my point. You would have realized this if your doctorate included simple reading.

Instead, they simply refuse to credit his information at all and then, paradoxically, demand that he provide more of it.

I never asked him for facts or figures. I asked Jim to realize that are things in this world that logic sometimes can't define. Perhaps if your could read and understand the English language, this wouldn't be so tough for you to grasp.

If this were a courtroom, this trio would be cited for contempt and have their licenses revoked.

Some people could argue that a doctorate without the ability to read is grounds for that doctorate to be revoked.

Posted by Mac at January 16, 2006 05:23 AM

Post a comment