| | | Look, I thought the Clinton years were terrible because he allowed the United States to be led around by the nose. Particularly, with respect to Saddam, as it was my opinion that the instant Saddam violated the UN resolution which resulted in the cessation of hostilities, we should have been pounding him. That's what should have been done. And he did fail to get bin Laden for the absurd reason that he "couldn't prove" some of his attacks were done by him.
I kind looked past the failure on bin Laden because I can see how he failed to recognize it was a war. What Bush really got right was to know instantly that we were at war. The second the WTC was hit, he KNEW it was a war, not a crime. And there is other stuff.
I could not stand Clinton at the time. But I can say, looking back, he wasn't a horrible president. He realized that he was not going to get his way, and he came to terms with Gingrich and a hell of a lot got done. Welfare reform, tax cuts in his second term which created one hell of a strong economy for several years. And deficit reduction. And he had the gumption to give credit where it was due. The reality is that Newt Gingrich was just as critical to it as Clinton was.
Clinton's second term could have easily become what Obama's two terms have been. But Clinton had the good sense not to let that happen. And you have to give him credit for that.
It is the same reasoning that makes me know that Obama will be held accountable for his two failed terms. 30 years from now it will be clear to historians that these two terms were among the worst in the nation's history.
Or, maybe I'll wake up in my 90s and go, "Damn, that Obama got a lot of stuff done." I don't really see that happening.... |
|
