60 Minutes - Bill Clinton

In my opinion it was excellent, miss him as the "top gun"... big time.

What's not to miss? A President who was brilliantly intelligent (perhaps not in his personal life), could speak in complete sentences, who had brilliant advisors, who eliminated the Reagan/Bush deficits, who presided over the longest peace-time economic expansion in history with low inflation and almost unbelievably low unemployment, etc., etc., etc.? Americans knew they had it good during the Clinton years. Polls indicate he would have been re-elected for a third term if he weren't barred by the Constitution. As it is, the majority of Americans voted for Al Gore, at least in part believing that he would carry forward the successful policies of the Clinton administration. But then we had our judicial coup-d'etat, and the rest of the sad history we all know about. . .

>Americans knew they had it good during the Clinton years.

>Polls indicate he would have been re-elected for a third term

>if he weren't barred by the Constitution.

_________________________

Thursday, June 05, 2003

By Dana Blanton

George W. Bush would handily defeat Bill Clinton if they were the major party candidates in 2004. In a hypothetical matchup between the current president and his predecessor, 53 percent say they would vote for Bush while less than a third (32 percent) say they would vote for Clinton, with six percent saying “neither." Of course, these two candidates are only imaginary opponents as the U.S. Constitution restricts Clinton from running for a third term.

But should the Constitution be changed? In a recent speech, former President Clinton commented that he thought the 22nd Amendment (search) to the Constitution “should probably be modified” to allow an individual to serve more than two terms as president. In the latest FOX News poll, conducted June 3-4 by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, most Americans oppose making such a change to the Constitution.

Only 20 percent of the public supports changing the 22nd Amendment, while the more widely held opinion (75 percent) is that the Constitution should not be modified to allow for a third presidential term. Partisanship is not an issue here, as Democrats and Republicans equally oppose allowing a third term. Men are slightly more opposed to making the change than women (78 percent and 73 percent respectively). Some of Clinton’s fellow baby boomers (age 51-59) are the strongest opponents at 82 percent.

In the hypothetical Bush-Clinton matchup, Republicans solidly support Bush (88 percent) compared to 62 percent of Democrats who say they would vote for Clinton. Almost a quarter (24 percent) of Democrats say they would vote for Bush while only seven percent of GOPers would vote for Clinton.

___________________________________

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88691,00.html

>George W. Bush would handily defeat Bill Clinton if they

>were the major party candidates in 2004.

According to Fox News. What a shocker. :7

>>George W. Bush would handily defeat Bill Clinton if they

>>were the major party candidates in 2004.

>

>According to Fox News. What a shocker. :7

I was wondering who the first idiot would be who was so desperate to wish away these facts that they would try to exploit the irrelevant happenstance that it was Fox News which commissioned this outside poll as a means to dismiss it. Congratulations on the achievement, Rick.

Not even the most extreme partisans in journalism claim that polls are suspect because Fox News commissions them, any more than polls commissioned by the New York Times or NPR are suspect because those organizations commission them. Can you find a single credible source suggesting that Fox News polls are unreliable? But if it makes you feel better to pretend that these facts aren't true, by all means, go ahead.

It's so funny how you make no effort to find out if this poll is accurate. You just read it, think: "I don't want this to be true," and then shut your eyes and insist that it isn't. Just like a 5-year old does. That must be so peaceful.

>What's not to miss? A President who was brilliantly

>intelligent (perhaps not in his personal life), . . .

Highlights from this month's TIME interview with Bill Clinton include:

On whether the Iraq war was justified: "You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased," Clinton tells TIME.

"After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that," he tells TIME.

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."

>"That's why I supported the Iraq thing...."

Not to mention, it would hurt the rest of the family's political career if he varied more than two percentage points one way or the other, from the conventional wisdom of the American people.

Speaking of which, since someone thinks a poll taken a year ago, shortly after the Bush "Mission Accomplished" photo shoot, has something to tell us today, let's look at the results of the most recent poll by the same organization:

>>The national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation shows that about a third of Americans believe in ghosts (34 percent) and an equal number in UFOs (34 percent), and about a quarter accept things like astrology (29 percent), reincarnation (25 percent) and witches (24 percent).<<

Those are the people who are voting for Bush.

>I was wondering who the first idiot would be who was so

>desperate to wish away these facts that they would try to

>exploit the irrelevant happenstance that it was Fox News which

>commissioned this outside poll as a means to dismiss

>it.

That's quite a sentence. :+

>Can you

>find a single credible source suggesting that Fox News polls

>are unreliable?

IMO, all polls are useless and unreliable. Especially one that is over a year old.

oops

Actually, I doubt that people who have strong mystical beliefs are likely to vote for Bush, who as a "born-again Christian" is the farthest thing possible from them.

In fact, except for misguided non-mystical trailer park residents and coldly calculating Greedy Old Plutocrats, I can't think of anyone who'd vote for Bush. Oh, yes, I forgot all the contract interrogators in Iraq and elsewhere, and all the Halliburton employees. . . x(

>Actually, I doubt that people who have strong mystical

>beliefs are likely to vote for Bush, who as a "born-again

>Christian" is the farthest thing possible from them.

Actually, a majority of the group known as "the least educated people" vote for the Democratic candidate in almost every national election.

>In fact, except for misguided non-mystical trailer park

>residents and coldly calculating Greedy Old Plutocrats, I

>can't think of anyone who'd vote for Bush. Oh, yes, I forgot

>all the contract interrogators in Iraq and elsewhere, and all

>the Halliburton employees. . . x(

LOL! Facts don't matter to you in the slightest:

From the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll:

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Election 2004

Presidential Ballot

Date Bush Kerry

June 20 46 46

June 19 45 46

June 18 46 45

June 17 46 45

June 16 46 45

June 15 46 46

June 14 46 47

June 13 47 45

June 12 47 44

June 11 47 44

_____________________________________________________

Bush Job Approval

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern Bush Job Approval

Strongly Approve 34%

Somewhat Approve 16%

Somewhat Disapprove 14%

Strongly Disapprove 36%

-----------

Monday June 21, 2004--Fifty percent (50%) of American voters say they approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Another 50% disapprove.

For the past several weeks, the President's Approval rating has been at 51% or 52%. Today marks the first time it has fallen to 50% in nearly three weeks.

Better than Bush the Bungler

Clinton had his faults, but the ignorance and foolishness necessary to get our country involved in a failed war are thankfully not among them.

When he proposed using force to end the murderous junta in Haiti, Republicans opposed it. Clinton persisted, and kept up a steady drumbeat of military preparation until finally the generals agreed to leave without a shot being fired by our troops.

When he proposed using force to end the occupation of Kosovo, Republicans opposed it. Many with a good deal of military experience, including McCain, insisted that an air campaign would never force the Serbs to give in, and that we would have to send thousands of troops to fight in the forests of Yugoslavia through a cold and bloody winter. These military geniuses proved to be wrong and Clinton, who had never in his life heard a shot fired in anger, proved to be absolutely right.

I regret that Bush has proved to be such a bungler. The strategy of overthrowing a dictatorship in the Middle East in order to spread freedom and democracy in the region could work -- with a different president and cabinet to execute it rather than the ham-handed crew we have today.

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

>When he proposed using force to end the murderous junta in

>Haiti, Republicans opposed it. Clinton persisted, and kept up

>a steady drumbeat of military preparation until finally the

>generals agreed to leave without a shot being fired by our

>troops.

When Clinton -- whose Presidency saw terrorist attack after terrorist attack on U.S. interests with hardly a response -- impotently lobbed a few cruise missiles vaguely near bin Laden, it strongly bolstered the Muslim militants' mocking view of the U.S. as fearing actual combat, willing instead to "fight" only via low-risk, high-technology means due to a fear of sustaining casulties - the same effect Reagan's withdrawl in Lebanon, and Clinton's withdrawl in Somolia, and Clinton's "air attacks only" strategy in Yugoslavia, had. As much as anything else, this emboldened these terrorists to believe that the U.S. was afraid to fight. They no longer think that, thankfully.

>I regret that Bush has proved to be such a bungler. The

>strategy of overthrowing a dictatorship in the Middle East in

>order to spread freedom and democracy in the region could work

>-- with a different president and cabinet to execute it rather

>than the ham-handed crew we have today.

I agree that this Administration tragically bungled an awesome opportunity in Iraq, but if you believe - as you just said - that a "strategy of overthrowing a dictatorship in the Middle East in

order to spread freedom and democracy in the region could work," then it is no longer possible to argue rationally that what we TRIED to achieve in Iraq was unrelated to our efforts to stop terrorism, since success in that goal would have unquestionably been incomparably valuable in combatting terrorism.

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

>When Clinton -- whose Presidency saw terrorist attack after

>terrorist attack on U.S. interests with hardly a response --

I do wish you would stop making shit up. Anyone reading the above, provided he was a real ignoramus, would never know that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught, prosecuted and convicted on Clinton's watch, that the "Blind Sheik" bombing plot was forestalled and the sheik himself now resides in a federal prison thanks to Clinton's Justice Department, and that the African embassy bombers were also caught and prosecuted by Clinton's administration.

> this emboldened these terrorists to believe

>that the U.S. was afraid to fight.

Considering that Clinton had a record of catching and punishing those involved in the attacks you cite, the terrorists must have been comatose if Clinton's actions convinced them there would be no response.

> it is no longer possible to argue rationally that

>what we TRIED to achieve in Iraq was unrelated to our efforts

>to stop terrorism, since success in that goal would have

>unquestionably been incomparably valuable in combatting

>terrorism.

Your use of the word "unquestionably" is another example of your habit of demanding that the rest of us treat as facts what are actually unproven assumptions or theories. I'd like to think that if Bush's crew hadn't screwed up the war in Iraq so badly a democratic Iraq would have undermined support for Islamism through the region. But the fact is no one knows what would have happened -- it's like saying you know "unquestionably" what would have happened if the D-Day invasion had been repulsed. The truth is neither you nor anyone else knows the answer.

And whatever the result of a successful transition in Iraq WOULD have been, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been far sounder to continue containing Saddam -- a policy Colin Powell said in February of 2001 was working just fine -- and focus on rooting out Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries far more involved in promoting terrorism than Iraq ever was.

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

>I do wish you would stop making shit up. Anyone reading the

>above, provided he was a real ignoramus, would never know that

>the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught, prosecuted

>and convicted on Clinton's watch, that the "Blind Sheik"

>bombing plot was forestalled and the sheik himself now resides

>in a federal prison thanks to Clinton's Justice Department,

>and that the African embassy bombers were also caught and

>prosecuted by Clinton's administration.

LOL!!!! That's all I can say in response to the notion that putting specific terrorists on trial AFTER they commit terrorist acts constitutes a meaningful response to terrorism. Terrorists are not individual actors; they operate in a network. Al Qaeda is an organization. They are dedicated to the goal of destroying our society and are working actively towards that goal. The idea is to smash it and stop it from acquiring weapons and engaging in attacks.

Sitting around waiting for them to strike in increasingly deadly attacks, and then putting 4 or 5 individuals on trial who were directly involved in the attacks after American citizens have been slaughtered-- while leaving untouched the organization cultivating tens of thousands of new fighters as well as their sources of weapons -- is a fucking joke and a guaranteed ticket to inevitable suicide.

But if you think that commencement of legal proceedings is all that is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda, then I can understand why you think that Clinton did a great job combatting terrorism.

Then again, given that the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was planned almost in its entirety during his Administration and executed shortly after his departure - and given that there was one terrorist attack after the next while he was President - it should be a little difficult, even when you're among like-minded liberal clones, to claim with a straight face that he was effective in smashing terrorism.

>Considering that Clinton had a record of catching and

>punishing those involved in the attacks you cite, the

>terrorists must have been comatose if Clinton's actions

>convinced them there would be no response.

I didn't say that terrorists thought there'd be "no response." I said they became convinced that the U.S. was only willing to engage in low-risk strategies - like high-altitude bombings and service of legal papers. Your defense of Clinton's actions makes that point perfectly.

I'd like

>to think that if Bush's crew hadn't screwed up the war in Iraq

>so badly a democratic Iraq would have undermined support for

>Islamism through the region.

That's why there is a link between the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism. That is logically necessary based on the premise that YOU endorsed. I consider logical necessity to constitute "unquestionable truths." If you don't, that's fine (and bizarre), but either way, you are positing a link between the war in Iraq and the fight against Islamic terrorism, whether you want to admit that you're doing that or not.

>And whatever the result of a successful transition in Iraq

>WOULD have been, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been far

>sounder to continue containing Saddam -- a policy Colin Powell

>said in February of 2001 was working just fine . . .

February 2001 came before September 2001. To understand why that fact matters fundamentally, check out Bill Clinton's explanation, posted above.

RE:Laughing More at Trilingual

>Americans knew they had it good during the Clinton years.

>Polls indicate he would have been re-elected for a third term

>if he weren't barred by the Constitution.

______________

As I've demonstrated, actual FACTS show that pertty much every sentence of what Trilingual said when beginning this thread is utterly false. Here's the best yet:

AP Poll: Most Rate Reagan Over Clinton

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say that Ronald Reagan, who died this month, will be remembered as a better president than Bill Clinton, who is trying to improve his image with a new autobiography, according to an Associated Press poll.

Seven in 10 say history will judge Reagan superior, based on the survey conducted one week after the Republican icon's state funeral and nonstop media coverage focused not only on the ceremonies marking his death at age 93 but a lifetime of achievements from Hollywood to the White House.

Out of office just 3 1/2 years, Clinton recently returned to the limelight with a primetime interview to publicize his memoir, "My Life," which goes on sale Tuesday. The expectation long before the 957-page book reached the stores was a tome that would provide insights into the sexual scandal with a White House intern and impeachment — the nadir of the Clinton presidency.

. . .

Some 83 percent of those questioned said they have a favorable view of Reagan as a person, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. The former president completed his two terms in office in 1988.

A majority of 53 percent said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 41 percent rated him favorably.

. . .

By a 2-to-1 margin, those surveyed said Reagan was more effective at communicating his ideas to the American people than Clinton. "Reagan has certain ideals and principles and he conveyed those ideas clearly," said Vid Kondratas, a 33-year-old, Springfield, Va., computer programmer who considers himself an independent. "People knew what Reagan stood for and what his principles were."

Clinton remains popular among Democrats and unpopular with Republicans while independents are slightly more inclined to view him negatively. In 2000 presidential election, Vice President Al Gore distanced himself from Clinton, in large part because of those perceptions.

People were about evenly divided on whether Clinton or [George W.] Bush will be remembered as the better president.

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

>Sitting around waiting for them to strike in increasingly

>deadly attacks, and then putting 4 or 5 individuals on trial

>who were directly involved in the attacks after American

>citizens have been slaughtered-- while leaving untouched the

>organization cultivating tens of thousands of new fighters

Once again, you are simply making shit up. Sheik Rahman, the so-called "Blind Sheik," was one of the primary instigators and spiritual leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, an organization whose more extreme members, including Bin Laden's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri, formed the nucleus of Al Qaeda. While never personally participating in any terrorist act, Rahman provided the motivation for uncounted numbers of young men who became, or tried to become, terrorists. His apprehension was a tremendous blow to the Islamist cause. So suggesting that the Clinton administration did nothing other than put a few low-level actors in jail is simply a lie. And a mighty obvious one at that.

>But if you think that commencement of legal proceedings is all

>that is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda, then I can understand

>why you think that Clinton did a great job combatting

>terrorism.

I haven't noticed that Bush's strategy of sending a huge army to Iraq has succeeded in defeating Al Qaeda, have you noticed that? All accounts that I have heard suggest that the organization has simply adapted to the new environment in which it finds itself and is in no danger whatsoever of disappearing. Before you bash Clinton's strategy you should try coming up with a workable alternative. You obviously haven't thought of one so far.

>Then again, given that the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil

>was planned almost in its entirety during his Administration

>and executed shortly after his departure

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is a lot like blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor. After all, the attack was planned in its entirety AND executed during FDR's administration, right?

Nonsense. Everyone but hysterical partisans like yourself must realize that the blame for 9/11 goes to a whole series of presidents of both parties who insisted on following the crazy strategy of supporting tyrants and murderers in the Mideast because they helped keep the oil market relatively stable. You know, the very same bonehead strategy you are still plugging on this message board.

Back in the 80s conservatives like you loved the idea of supporting Islamists because they were willing to fight the "godless Communists." Unfortunately, you didn't give much thought to what the Islamists would do if the Communists went away. Well, now we know what they would do -- bomb our cities. Happy?

> I said they became convinced that the U.S. was only willing

>to engage in low-risk strategies - like high-altitude bombings

>and service of legal papers. Your defense of Clinton's

>actions makes that point perfectly.

Uh huh. And now that we see Bush's high-risk strategy of sending scores of thousands of Americans in harm's way has brought us no nearer defeating the Islamists than Clinton's low-risk strategy, which seems preferable?

>That's why there is a link between the war in Iraq and the

>fight against terrorism. That is logically necessary based on

>the premise that YOU endorsed. I consider logical necessity

>to constitute "unquestionable truths."

I consider it to constitute horseshit. That a change of regime in Iraq would undermine Islamism is a theory, nothing more than that. Too bad Bush threw away the chance to test it.

>February 2001 came before September 2001. To understand why

>that fact matters fundamentally, check out Bill Clinton's

>explanation, posted above.

I did. I can certainly understand why a president would worry about Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. What is much harder to understand is why the president would continue to worry about it after every expert on his staff assured him that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's actions.

>Actually, I doubt that people who have strong mystical

>beliefs are likely to vote for Bush, who as a "born-again

>Christian" is the farthest thing possible from them.

Oh, I get it ... reincarnation is strongly mystical, resurrection is the farthest thing possible from it. Ghosts are strongly mystical, angels and devils are the farthest thing possible from them. UFO's are strongly mystical, virgin births are the farthest thing possible from them....

>In my opinion it was excellent, miss him as the "top gun"...

>big time.

I also enjoyed the interview. I thought Mr Clinton was quite candid in his answers. The man still has a lot to say of the current state of Washington politics. I didn't think he would be so critical of himself for not being to hunt down Osama in the time frame leading up to the 2000 presidential election. It was also nice to see him back in his home state of Arkansas, talking about his childhood and what shaped his political career. I remember when Bill Clinton made his appearance on the Late Show With David Letterman, exactly one year after 9/11 and he was so forth right with his answers that at one point Mr Letterman asked Mr Clinton if he still missed the presidency. I remember the audience errupted into a loud cheer. The former president is still the top gun of the Democratic Party and he will once again show just how much he can charm the audience on Prime Time television at the Democratic Convention next month.

Rohale

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

> Al Qaeda is an organization. They are dedicated to

>the goal of destroying our society and are working actively

>towards that goal. The idea is to smash it and stop it

One could say the same thing about HooBoy message boards. (It seems to be somewhat better organized, I'll admit.) Lots of prosecutors would like to smash and stop those who frequent this forum, before they commit any prostitution-related crimes. If someone gets smashed who isn't involved, so what? He's probably guilty of something else. Let God sort it out.

As big a fan as I am of Bill, I still felt betrayed when he belatedly told the truth about Monica ( sometimes I think only Hilary and I were blind enough to believe Clinton was merely an innocent victim of the Vast RW Conspiracy)). And his waffling on gay rights issues...his midnight signing of DOMA, and his caving to the right with the Don't Ask, Don't tell policy in the military... will always be a blemish on his otherwise remarkable presiedential record.

RE: Better than Bush the Bungler

>> Al Qaeda is an organization. They are dedicated to

>>the goal of destroying our society and are working actively

>>towards that goal. The idea is to smash it and stop it

>One could say the same thing about HooBoy message boards.

One could if one didn't give a damn whether an analogy actually has anything to do with what is being analogized.

> Lots of

>prosecutors would like to smash and stop those who frequent

>this forum, before they commit any prostitution-related

>crimes. If someone gets smashed who isn't involved, so what?

>He's probably guilty of something else. Let God sort it out.

How exactly is a prosecutor supposed to stop someone who HASN'T committed or attempted a crime? What would such a person be charged with?

Wait? Faux News says that Shrubya would beat Clinton? It MUST be true. Leave it to a Repiglican like Doug to run to the repiglican News Network and pull something out of the Kool Aid files.

When will the Repigs let Clinton go? Do they fear Hillary that much?

As I said in another thread:

When Clinton lied, nobody died.

Hillary for Veep?? Kerry might just be that bold.

sigh.... I miss the good ole days when Bill was in office.