Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (161271)	2/17/2003 12:31:11 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574094

As far as I can count, the rest of the world only really has one solid prominent reason before Iraq to really differentiate between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and that's the Kyoto debacle. Perhaps the death penalty for terrorists is another. There aren't too many major things that Clinton would've done differently. They don't really care about supply-side economics or school vouchers or snowmobiles in national parks or any of those things. You do. They didn't like us before, and now it gets a chance to come out. If you have any European friends living in Europe, talk to them. In some places, their hatred of Bush is off the scale. I was surprised last fall when I talked to some friends in Germany and the UK about Iraq. They could barely contain themselves when Bush's name came up. We had to agree not to talk politics. Its one thing for us to criticize but its another to hear non Americans criticize........you know what I mean? ted

To: SilentZ who wrote (161271)	2/17/2003 9:07:37 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574094

There aren't too many major things that Clinton would've done differently. You're kidding, right? The reason we're engaged in this debacle with Iraq right now is because Clinton failed to deal with it at the time the inspectors were refused access in '98. The correct response at that time (threatening, and following up, with a massive military buildup and war, if necessary) would have totally eliminated the situation we have now. Clinton's failure to respond to the de facto ejection of weapons inspectors was the most massive foreign policy failure since the Iranian Hostage Crisis and perhaps the Vietnam War. Clinton also would have been too weak to take on Al Qaeda in the way Bush has. And the fact that he had allowed Bin Laden to walk away when he was handed over on a silver platter would have been a major scandal for Clinton. Please, let's not jump to conclusions about what Clinton "might" have done. There is plenty of history there to tell us what he actually did, and it isn't impressive.