Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Under Clinton, the rich payed their share, the economy was roaring, and we ended up with a surplus. Sounds like a pretty effective president to me.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The economy started to tank in the year 2000, even before Bush was elected. It was the age of dot.com and quasi-bogus schemes.
However Clinton's efforts in balancing the budget should not go unnoticed.
ruveyn
While there is the possibility that my memory is faulty, I do seem to recall that the downturn under Clinton wasn't all that bad, yet. I still put the blame for the financial disaster at W. Bush's doorstep.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Stuff was unraveling before Bush took office and then Enron's ponzi scheme was uncovered just after Bush took office, then 9/11 happened. All within the first few months of Bush taking office.
I hold Clinton primarily responsible for the fiascos within our intelligence agencies that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Actually, Clinton had left a file for Bush entitled,
Bin Laden determined to attack America, detailing the domestic threat Al Qaeda posed to our country. Bush and his cabinet chose to ignore it. Sure, the intelligence agencies who should have been working together dropped the ball out of petty jealousies of each other. And I concede, as commander-in-chief, the final responsibility rested with Clinton; but it was Bush who could have cared less about the impending danger, rather than picking up where Clinton had left off. And as a matter of fact, it was Clinton who had tried to kill Bin Laden - a job which Bush not only failed in completing, but even stated "I don't care where he is." Bush later quietly shut down the CIA force searching for Bin Laden - and it was only restored under Obama, with very different results.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer