Would I elect Bill Clinton again? In a heartbeat.

[bigtree]

And, I don't buy the argument that he's not the one running. The hell he isn't.

[Labors of Hercules]

1. That is one BUTT ugly picture. sorry... nt/

[maddiejoan]

4. Who's the Game Show Host

in your sig pic?

[durrrty libby]

13. ...

:rofl:

[MediaBabe]

6. If you're sorry why did you post it?

Did some uncontrollable compulsion force you against your will to say something bad when you could have said nothing aq all?

[AX10]

2. Remember, this place is full of...

latte sipping leftie elitists who hate the Clinton's and love the fad candidate.

[Atman]

3. Coupla stoners if I ever seen 'em!

Normally I wouldn't consider that a bad thing...except they both feel the need to lie about it.

I'd vote for BILL again. Hillary? Not so much.

.

[Ohio Joe]

5. I with you

Not a second of hesitation.

[MediaBabe]

7. I like Bill

But after two terms of Bush I am very glad our system precludes a third term for any one person.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Bill did so much injury to my nose that he erased Hillary as a possibility.

He, and Hillary, have triangulated me right out of nose-holder brigade.

[Zywiec]

9. No problem with all the dead Iraqis?

Clinton Administration Turns Deaf Ear As UN Officials Voice Concerns About The Way Sanctions Have Ravaged Iraqi Society

-snip-

The sanctions, in place for almost a decade, have been responsible not only for the deaths of about 1 million Iraqis -- 500,000 of them children, according to UNICEF -- but also for the absolute shredding of the cultural, economic, political, family and intellectual fabric of Iraqi society.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/022100-102.htm

I guess it's true there's not a lot of difference...

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. And FDR authorized Executive Order 9066

and he is still considered one of the greatest presidents ever. Guess a person cannot be 100% right to 100% of the people 100% of the time.

[Zywiec]

24. As horrible as that was, nobody was killed.

Is it comparible to 1,000,000 people starved to death?

The order led to the Japanese American internment in which some 120,000 ethnic Japanese people were held in internment camps for the duration of the war.

-snip-

On August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, based on the CWRIC recommendations, was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. On November 21, 1989, George H.W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual redress payments and a letter of apology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

[MyNameGoesHere]

26. Horrible is horrible no matter how it is spun.

to make believe that it was Clinton alone, and not one of many countries who supported UN sanctioned no fly zones and economic sanctions is just really not truthful. Was it the best solution? No. Was Clinton to "blame" for 1 million deaths as you seem to indicate? Hell no. There were too many people involved INCLUDING Saddam Hussein himself to blame. Not to mention another "bush" folly that started it in the first place. <2 bushes. 2 failed wars. 2 failed economies.> FDR was SOLELY responsible for what he did. He did this to Americans. In my book that is WAY worse than Clinton s inaction to lift the sanctions.

[Zywiec]

27. Madeleine Albright calmly asserts that U.S. policy objectives

were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

You're right, the US and Bill Clinton had nothing to do with all those deaths. It was the UN's fault.

[BringEmOn]

10. Hell, no! He's had his head firmly planted up Poppy Bush's ass since leaving office.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. Heh Heh, Look at that first picture. Didn't inhale my ass!

:smoke:

[Vinca]

12. Now that we know how NAFTA has worked out,

I would not vote for Bill Clinton again.

[bigtree]

14. It didn't have a President Gore to enforce its penalties and sanctions

Right now, it's a bust. But, who knows what the impact would have been with a Democratic president in charge of its implementation?

[PsN2Wind]

41. Are you implying Bill Clinton

was not a Democratic president? If my recollection is correct he was in that office for 7+ years after signing NAFTA into law, yet the result was as Ross Perot said "that giant sucking sound" as American jobs left for Mexico. And Al Gore was pushing the Clinton line that "there will be some temporary dislocations" meaning a lot of formerly middle-class blue-collar workers will lose their livelihoods.

[bigtree]

43. you're, of course are ignoring the booming economy during that time

which was absorbing most of the job losses.

*and, the fact that NAFTA wasn't fully implemented until much later.

[Zywiec]

15. *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

Nothing but crickets...

[bigtree]

16. Now you're hurting my feelings . . .

PLENTY of support for Bill Clinton out there

[Zywiec]

17. I was hoping you would respond to my other post

but I guess some things are indefensible.

[bigtree]

19. I'll accept that the sanctions were catastrophic for civilians, as most sanctions turn out.

And, that Bill Clinton refused to let up. But, I would point out that, when there was a window for Clinton to change course, there were calls from the right for even more military intervention than the sporadic bombings Clinton had ordered. I think his negligence in reforming the sanctions regime to disable Saddam more than they were devastating civilians was a huge mistake which hasn't penetrated the nation's psyche, even today, as Bush has pressed for similar measures against Iran. I would hope there would be more caution in a new Democratic administration. I can't imagine Bill Clinton's reasoning hasn't shifted as a result of his Iraq sanction regime. Bush's exploitation of the regime when he got in office should also give pause to Democrats considering the same.

But, I STILL think he was one of the all-time best. I know that, in my lifetime, he certainly was.

[Zywiec]

20. Someone responsible for a million deaths is one of the all-time best?

I guess everyone has their own criteria.

And of course since we didn't have to see them starving to death while our prosperity was rising, it didn't really matter.

Long live the '90's!

[bigtree]

21. I suppose you could impose that standard on other presidents who've imposed sanctions

slippery argument, I think. What action would YOU have taken against Saddam after he gassed and slaughtered thousands of Kurds? Rumsfeld was against sanctions at the time. Would you have accepted the sanctions which were offered as an alternative to the first 'Gulf War'?

[Zywiec]

23. What other president has UNICEF said was responsible for a million deaths? n/t

[bigtree]

25. they didn't seem to have any problem with his support for tsunami relief

or support for the fight against HIV/AIDS ($I0 million donation from Clinton Foundation)
http://www.thebodypro.com/content/policy/art11171.html


or the Clinton Global Initiative's $30 million pledge to help educate children, especially in Iraq and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and a pledge of $1 billion to help improve maternal and child health worldwide
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/unicef-clinton-global-initiatives-30-mill-education-pledge/1116300418

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. I'm hoping for Edwards. Or maybe a miracle and Gore will jump in

I'm a dreamer. :-)

[book_worm]

28. No, I think it's time for a change not a continuation of the Clinton presidency

since you brought it up and said "I don't buy the argument that he's not the one running"--I don't want a third Bill Clinton term.

[bigtree]

29. best years of my life . . .

especially economically.

I couldn't help but appreciate and admire the way he always seemed to get the better of his republican critics and detractors, despite the very public prosecutions.

[Zywiec]

30. Not the best years of life for more than 500,000 Iraqi children

[bigtree]

32. just the one point? I got that yesterday, and answered you several times

your exploitation of this child for this argument is disgusting.

[Zywiec]

33. Wow, if a million dead people isn't enough to even move you a little

you seem pretty cold.

By the way, the picture is actually a result of the sanctions during the '90's.

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future."

~ Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright under Bill Clinton

[bigtree]

35. pathetic defense

you post this as a representation of your OWN morality?

Good for you that you care enough to debate this, but you cross the line when you make this into a challenge of MY moral compass. Your exploitation of this child for the purpose of debating me on this issue is reprehensible and sad.

[MadHound]

31. Just another corporately controlled president.

Sure, he talked a good progressive game, but when push came to shove, he backed the corporate play each and every day. NAFTA, the repeal of Glas-Steagal, '96 Telecom Act, welfare "reform". All these actions and more did real harm to our country and around the world, much of it laying the basis for the crisis we're facing now.

And let's not even talk about his war policies. 500,000 innocent Iraqis dead due to US backed sanctions and thrice weekly US bombing runs, the numbers speak for themselves.

Sorry, I'm not in the Clinton camp. They both are simply corporate candidates who talk a good liberal game to get elected, but once in office they do what is best for corporate America, not real America.

[bigtree]

34. We have sanctions other than those in Iraq. Many presidents are responsible

. . . some in succession. I won't defend them, except to say that there are few who have run for this office, or held it, who would not be inclined to use or continue sanctions regimes around the world with the rationale that the action is their most aggressive option short of military intervention. I think that, to just highlight the sanctions as the cause of the suffering of the Iraqi civilians during Clinton's term provides just one aspect of the overall concern and involvement of the U.S. in Iraq. As in the many other countries in which we employ trade restrictions and economic embargoes, there are individual, underlying reasons for the actions taken which usually are in response to a regime's abuse of their authority to the extent it is felt that the regime endangers the citizenry anyway, and that a response (understanding the potential collateral effects) is necessary and preferable to either military action or outright indifference. We can't just allow our economy to continue to underwrite regimes which are determined corrupt and dangerous. Saddam met a great deal of that criteria. In fact, I supported the Democratic position against the first Iraq bombing campaign to impose sanctions instead of bombing. I still think that was a preferable response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The sanctions imposed during the Clinton administration needed better monitoring and attention to ensure that they were hurting the regime instead of devastating the Iraqi population. That didn't happen and Iraqis suffered in great numbers. That was a mistake, I think, not a crime. And, I'm not accepting the argument that Bill Clinton is some sort of monster because of the results from his foreign policy and militarism toward Iraq. There was a debate raging about how best to keep Saddam in check after Bush allowed him to take his army back to Baghdad which Clinton inherited. There were concerns about Saddam orchestrating another assault on the Kurds. There were concerns about Saddam expanding his military to the south. No-fly zones were established and enforced. And, there were bombings of what were determined to be military facilities; to the extent that there remained, at the time of Bush's invasion, almost nothing of the WMDs which all sides agree Saddam possessed at the time.

I think you are unfairly portraying the sanctions regime imposed and enforced by Clinton as in isolation from the rest of the debate. That approach may provide a convenient portrait of the disastrous effects of U.S. impositions abroad, but it does little to provide an honest analysis of the events and consequences of Saddam's own aggression and the options debated and legislated at the time.

[Skwmom]

36. Yeah NAFTA has worked out so well for this country.

Which begs the question - was Clinton just not smart enough to realize what these great "free-trade" agreements would do to the U.S. (and workers world wide) or did he just not give a darn (and was willing to side with the corporations to retain his political power)?

[bigtree]

38. As I said above, NAFTA

. . . didn't have a President Gore to enforce its penalties and sanctions. Who knows what the ultimate impact would have been with a Democratic president in charge of its implementation -- managing the effects on workers in a responsive way, penalizing where it called for penalties -- instead of the outright indifference of the Bush administration?

The ultimate fault may have been in assuming it wouldn't be manipulated by an administration hostile to American workers.

[Truthiness]

37. How exactly will Bill be involved? Attending Cabinet meetings?

Will Bill Clinton sit in on cabinet meetings? Will he sit behind Hillary during The State of the Union speeches? Will he take questions from reporters at press conferences? Will he veto bills and sign legislation? No, no, no no, and no. The problem is, however, that Bill Clinton has a difficult time sharing the limelight. Here's a guy used to being center stage relegated to First Lady status. Sorry, I don't see the upside?

[bigtree]

39. He's also a pretty bright fellow.

He'd find a way, if they managed to get back into power. And, I assume, most of the old hands of his administration would come back on board.

[Truthiness]

40. By old hands, do you mean the ones that deregulated the mortgage industry

Bill Clinton is as much to blame for the mortgage crisis as anyone, for repealing the Glass-Stegall Act:

When Franklin Roosevelt took office, both the President and Congress knew the banking crisis demanded immediate action. The result was one of the crown jewels of the New Deal: the Glass-Steagall Act, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933. Glass made sure the bill forbid banks from getting into the investment business. In addition, the bill established the Federal Deposit Insurance Company, which protects our bank deposits....

The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation's history came about as a result of another Clinton "triangulation," the wobbling attempt to find the middle of the road that has somehow managed to pass for a philosophy with many Democrats for over two decades. As former Clinton former campaign Richard Morris once described it, you move a little to the left, a little to the right. I'd love to hear Clinton give that explanation to a foreclosed home owner today.

With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided the Democratic Party. But it was the gift of the pen to Sanford Weill and its assuming an honored place on the Wall of Me that rubbed salt in the wound.


http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

[bigtree]

42. nope

I'm thinking of the Clinton administration which had the highest Homeownership Rate in History. The homeownership rate reached 67.2 percent in the second quarter of 2000 -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993. There were (at the time) almost 9 million more homeowners than in 1993. (Bureau of the Census, 7/26/00)

and, of an administration which encouraged investment in underserved communities with the New Markets Initiative. President Clinton's New Markets Initiative helped bring economic development and renewal to communities that had not benefited from the soaring economy by spurring more than $22 billion in new investment in urban and rural areas. On July 25, 2000, the House passed Clinton's New Markets Initiative that included extension and expansion of Empowerment Zones, and an increase in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.

Statement on Signing Federal Housing Administration Legislation
July 5th, 1994

Home ownership is one of the foundation stones of the American dream. Renewing and expanding this dream is one of my Administration's highest priorities and deepest commitments.

Our economic plan, which did so much to lower interest rates, has helped make homes affordable for more people. As more Americans realize that home ownership is within their reach, many of them turn to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) for Government assistance. These programs, some of which operate at a profit to the Federal Government, have enabled millions of Americans to enjoy the pride and sense of accomplishment that come with owning your own home.

As new home purchases and refinancings continue at a rapid rate, single-family home purchasers will soon be unable to do business with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Ginnie Mae—absent corrective action—because the increased demand for loans has exhausted their loan authority. That is why the Congress, acting responsibly and in a fiscally prudent manner, adopted a supplemental appropriation to replenish these funds. Today I am signing into law H.R. 4568, which provides a supplemental appropriation for HUD and Ginnie Mae so that these agencies can continue their good work in helping low- and middle-income Americans build their piece of the American dream.

Specifically, the Act provides: (1) increased loan commitment authority of $35 billion for the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance program; (2) increased Ginnie Mae loan guarantee commitment authority of $55 billion; (3) an increase of $3 billion in loan volume for condominium and other housing insurance programs; and (4) an additional $18 million in budget authority to subsidize mortgages for the purchase or construction of rental housing. Equally important, this legislation will not add a penny to the Federal deficit. So, as we continue putting our fiscal house in order, this legislation will ensure that home ownership becomes the order of the day for more and more Americans.

William J. Clinton

The White House,
July 5, 1994.