But I would appreciate more factual basis for your assertion other than "evidently." Because it's not evident to me.
Ah, CB, that would take a long post indeed. The post you are responding to was meant to stay at the same level uw was at, that is a fairly vapid, nonspecific defense of Bush and charge against Clinton. Mike does that often and the only appropriate response is the meet it with the same. Thus, my nonspecific defense. His later reply is more of the same only annotated with a column from yet another Clinton hater.
Mike's a good guy but, as you no doubt know by now, loves to have food fights on these kinds of threads and none are so much fun as bashing one another's presidents.
As you can see from my posts to Mike, I don't think that's a good thing to do on this thread.
I did dip, every so slightly, into a more specific argument in this post to Mike, which, no doubt, you have seen by now.
Message 17517667
I also could call to your attention a post LindbyBill made only this morning from someone whose last name is Arkin. The post appeared as a column in the LATimes and seems somewhat credible. In other words, I've seen the same points made in other places.
As for whether Bush or Clinton is to blame or whether it makes sense to have that discussion, I will step aside. As I said to Mike, there is more than enough blame to go around and to do so for several presidencies.
Unfortunately, I don't see much hope it will get fixed. It's been my experience that the fixes in these cases are often worse than the problem.
Happy Memorial weekend. |
