|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Clinton versus Bush: Greenspan delivers the verdict|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Experienced Member |
Is this the verdict of history? IMHO, yes.
The reason I care about this, is that IMHO, America has become---not too weak---but economically too poor to win in Iraq.   The reason is simple, and tragic for our military. Due to the fiscal irresponsibility that Greenspan condemns, Congress simply cannot afford to pay for the nation-building and peace-making efforts, that Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker are recommending. Who would have thought, that our soldiers would ever hear, "America simply cannot afford to support you in your mission." |
||
|
"Bowlers have BIG balls!"  |
Greenspan was a holdover from the Clinton Administration. I have great respect for him and his leadership at the Fed, however, Clinton did not face (or address) the same threat we face today.
  "The World's Finest" |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Since he was first appointed in 1987, you could more accurately call him a holdover from the Reagan administration. What financial threats does President Bush face that didn't face Mr. Clinton, other than the threats of his own making? |
|||
|
|
"Bowlers have BIG balls!" |
Fighting the war on terrorism is a drain on our economy. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your statement about the "threats of his own making." "The World's Finest" |
|||
|
|
60 day suspension for Verbal/disruptive posts attacking the integrity of US military. 4/19/2009 by OldArmyLove |
Yeah, and we didn't need to go into Iraq to fight terror. Saddam had the place firmly under control. He knew any Iraq-based terrorist activity towards the US or Israel would be taken as backed by him and cause him to be removed from power, so he didn't allow it. |
|||
|
|
"Bowlers have BIG balls!" |
And you came to this conclusion based on what intelligence? Or our you just opining? "The World's Finest" |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
And what do you base you great wisdom on???  |
|||
|
|
New Member |
usmc-family: Once again an excellent thread topic and post by you. Kudos! mustang |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Point one, the war in Iraq portion of the GWOT specifically, is far more expensive than it need have been had the President been willing to take the time to convince the neighbors it was in everyone's interest, including the Security Council, to remove Saddam. A reasonable case can and was made that Saddam had to be removed. No reasonable case for a long and essentially unilateral action of long duration was even contemplated, much less presented to the American people except after the fact. Point two, even considering that, there was far more growth in non-defense spending for the last six years than there were in the eight years under Clinton. FDR was very much interested in expanding health care to everyone, as was Truman ... but they didn't consider bringing up the subject during WWII or Korea. WTF is the retarded Medicare Plan "D" bill getting passed for then? This administration saw more bloated spending, cut no programs of any size, and behaved less responsibly, and less courageously, than any Democrat you are immediately going to name. They vetoed no spending bill, not a single one. And that is Alan Greenspan's opinion, not just mine, if you bother to read the linked article.  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Since he was first appointed in 1987, you could more accurately call him a holdover from the Reagan administration. What financial threats does President Bush face that didn't face Mr. Clinton, other than the threats of his own making?[/QUOTE] Amazing comment... Yes, it was BUSH that is at fault for everything, to include the Economic downward spiral that was emplaced during the remaining year of Clinton's Administration. AND, it is Bush's fault that Clinton didn't handle the growing Usama Bin Laden threat in the '90s, AND it is Bush's fault that in his eight months of Administration that he didn't correct the Screw-ups of the Clinton Administration. YES, HANG BUSH. |
|||
|
Member |
I guess you missed the fact that Special Ops took out two terrorist camps inside Iraq during the initial invasion, and that Saddam was paying off Palestinian families whose sons had martyred themselves, which led more to become homicide bomber for their cause against Israel. And let's not forget the one important terrorist leader that found refuge in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. So I wouldn't exactly grant Saddam a free pass as NOT supporting terrorism, or looking the other way. |
|||
|
Member |
Yes Saddam had the place firmly under is control, he just killed everyone who threatened his power including many Shi'ite clerics (as well as anyone who supported Iran), Kurds that wanted to an independent state, as well as his own Sunnis that disagreed with his absolute power. That was the main reason he would have never wanted an Islamic state like Iran, he would never share power with any clerics. He was a power-obsessed dictator (as many are I guess). Iraq reminds me a lot of when communism (as well as the Soviet stranglehold) fell in Yugoslavia and all hell broke loose with their various factions. Not sure keeping the peace with simple absolute almost barbaric power (and the constant use of the sword) is exactly a good thing. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I don't recall blaming him for everything, only mishandling the economy by pushing and insisting on tax cuts (ostensibly to "give back" the "surplus", as you might recall) in the teeth of an attack and two simultaneous wars, for the first time in recorded history, as well as not restraining spending for either the military or domestic programs. I do not suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" ... but I suggest that there is another, equally serious disease, that might be called "None Of It Is The President's Fault Syndrome" ... symptoms include going spastic when presented with unpleasant facts. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Again, oldmole, facts are just too hard for the Bush apologists to look at and absorb. Rather than attack you for your well researched and provable responses to what has gone wrong during this Bush administration they just come back with “The Blame Bush for Everything Excuse”. If just for once a list of what he has done right would be posted; maybe we doubters could be enlightened and thus convinced that he is NOT the worst president who ever took the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. I’ve always felt that when your opponent (in any discussion) only has acquisitions as answers; then he has no argument to prove you wrong.  |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale  |
If I may interject my own, somewhat limited, opinion on this mater.
I do not believe this is something that can be laid out in a nice and neat matrix like the naughty and nice list outlaw likes to drag out on special occasions. This is way too complicated for that. One curious aspect of this whole affair is Greenspane himself. He did serve for quite a long time. If he, in his manipulation of the Fed, was responsible for the fiscal condition we now find ourselves, the question just begs to be answered as, "How did just one man accomplish this", and "Why was he not stopped and relieved of his duties?" Greenspan's disappointment with the president seems, to me, to be a bit like sour grapes. Perhaps he believed that the president was not supporting him enough. Being a Regan appointee, I can surmise that the Ronald’s fiscal policies were somewhat familiar and in according with his own fiscal views. However, and I must read the full boo, what criticism does he have for all the presidents he worked under. Surely, President Bush is not alone. So, full disclosure and reading is in order. One big criticism doe not make a damnation. Have a good day!~!  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Greenspan,
"Mistakes were made", where have I heard that before?  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hBhIhFZHv25kcr7iTaUtLO8LvhQQ |
|||
|
|
If a tree falls in a forest and lands on a politician, even if you can't hear the tree or the screams, I'll bet you'd at least hear the applause. Paul Tindale |
Perhaps Mr. Greenspan was a slow learner. Have a good day!~! |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
How come no one has them blamed Greenspan for the rush up of interest rates in 1999/2000 that precipitated the recession that is wrongly blamed on Clinton? |
|||
|
|
Suspended: 20 days. Stillkit |
I'm waiting for someone to write a book that doesn't label Bush the worst President. How about a short story "The things that went right during the Bush administration." How about "The Iraq Plan" on the back of an envelope.
Bushies like Bush himself have no respect for knowledge. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
short story? you would only need a papagraph, if that. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Clinton versus Bush: Greenspan delivers the verdict
