Newt for President

[The Galatian]

Clinton's foreign policy was largely a massive failure.

In fact, he was more successful than most. He achieved his goals in Bosnia, in Haiti, and in Kosovo. He was responisble for the Easter Day accords that brought an end to the cycle of violence in Northern Ireland. Ironically, although he brought Gerry Adams into the White House to convince him he had to disarm and renounce violence, the Ulstermen were pleased that he was willing to listen to them. And he had the world's gratitude for these things.

He bombed Bin Laden's facilities in Sudan, and ran him out of Africa. He began sharing terrorism efforts with other countries. And he was tracking their financial dealings. Bin Laden was unable to mount any kind of attack as long as Clinton kept the pressure on.

He did not confront terrorism anywhere in the world.

I wouild have to conclude bombing them, pressuring nations to extradite them, and running them off from various countries seems to be pretty confrontational. Of course, Bush went more for the "understanding" approach, telling the FBI to back off on "harassing" them. Until they took out the WTC, that is.

He allowed genocide to go on in Eastern Europe and Africa.

You're a bit confused. He stopped it in Europe. The massive killings, rapes, and ethnic cleansing came to an end after he intervened. It's over. Bosnia is free and safe. The citizens of Kosovo are free and safe. Even in Kosovo, the army intervened to protect the few Serbs who lived there, as he ordered.

He did not confront Iraq with any observable influence.

Other than shooting down Iraqi aircraft in the no-fly zone, and blowing up Saddam's radar stations. And now, even Bush admits that during Clinton's tenure, Saddam began to destroy his poison gas stocks.

He did nothing to get Bin Ladin.

Unlike Bush, he continued to chase Bin Laden. He tried to get Sudan to extradict him, and did succeed in getting him expelled from what was then his center of operations. Bush told the FBI to stop harassing the Saudis.

Clinton benefitted from an economic swing

No kidding. Amazing how that swing started only after he got income and expenditures back in line... the Reagan/Bush "you can spend yourself rich" just drove up the debt to the point that it hurt business. That's why the voters fired Daddy Bush.

Bush's foreign policy still has a chance.

In the same sense that pigs might sprout wings and fly.:laugh: It's over. The war failed. The Iraqis, many of whom initially were happy to see us, now increasingly distrust and dislike us. Predictably, some troops stuck in that mess, lost their sense of decency, and committed abuses and killings that are the best possible recruiting tool Al Qaeda could hope for.

He's finally gotten into a spot from which Daddy can't bail him out.

It will probably be 20-30 years before we see the outcome of Bush's policy,

We already have seen the outcome of his policies. They are coming home in body bags daily. Not that he's done nothing about that; he's banned photographs of them, and sneaks them back in in the dead of night.

Democracy in the middle east? You can't impose democracy at gunpoint.

 

[The Galatian]

Clinton's foreign policy was largely a massive failure.

No one believes that, Larry. Clinton's policy succeeded in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Northern Ireland, etc.

He did not confront terrorism anywhere in the world.

He ran Bin Laden out of Sudan, bombed his facilities, kept track of his financial dealings, and even set up an FBI program to track radical Islamists. Bush, of course shut all that down. He preferred the "understanding" approach. An FBI agent even quit in protest at Bush interference in our anti-terror programs.

He allowed genocide to go on in Eastern Europe and Africa.

As you already know, Clinton put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Serbia. Even the Yugoslavs grudgingly admitted that the US army was protecting Serbs in Kosovo. There are no more concentration camps, no more ethnic cleansing.

Clinton should have intervened in Rwanda, however.

He did not confront Iraq with any observable influence.

Other than shooting down Saddam's aircraft, blowing up his radar units, and enforcing the no-fly zones. And even Bush now admits that during Clinton's watch, Saddam began destroying his WMD.

Clinton benefitted from an economic swing

Funny how it didn't start swingiing until Clinton got expeditures and income back within shouting distance. Even conservative economists like Freidman gave him high marks for his handling of the economy.

Bush's foreign policy still has a chance.

About the same chance that pigs will sprout wings and fly. It's getting worse, not better. He had no plan beyond "we'll win and the Iraqis will form a democracy and love us." Neocon theory, you know.

​

 

[Pastor Larry]

Galatian, you are living in a dream world. You never cease to amaze. The lengths to which you go to defend a defenseless position are incredible. You know as well as I do that what you have said above an extremely generous evaluation of what was essentially very bad foreign policy.

Clinton stopped the genocide in Eastern Europe? Those mass graves must be full of mannequins. There are mass graves in Iraq that were filled under Clinton's watch. They are still being uncovered. Much of what Hussein is on trial for happened during Clinton's presidency and Clinton did nothing to stop it.

He chased Bin Ladin? That's why he was able to pull off WTC 1 and 2, Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc. That's why he utterly failed to get him when he chance after chance.

Clinton never did get the expenditures back in swing. That was the republican congress that forced his hand. The first two years of his presidency are ample evidence to the fact that Clinton was doing nothing about the budget.

So don't rewrite history. Just recognize that you are wrong.

 

[The Galatian]

Galatian, you are living in a dream world.

For Larry, reality is dreamworld.

Clinton stopped the genocide in Eastern Europe?

Yep. And he was widely praised here and in Europe for doing it. Daddy Bush stood by while the Serbs commited mass murder in their ethnic cleansing. Clinton found a way to put a stop to it.

Those mass graves must be full of mannequins.

That crimes were committed during the Bush administration, does not mean that Clinton didn't put a stop to them, when he was in office. The Serbs were stopped, the rapes and murders were stopped, and peace returned to Bosnia.
You seem to find this objectionable.

There are mass graves in Iraq that were filled under Clinton's watch.

Clinton didn't occupy Iraq. Bush did. And the graves continue to be filled at an increasing rate. How is this a good thing?

They are still being uncovered. Much of what Hussein is on trial for happened during Clinton's presidency and Clinton did nothing to stop it.

In fact, Reagan and Daddy Bush actually helped Saddam stay in power, by giving him aid and intelligence in his war with Iran. At that time, Saddam was murdering thousands of people. Clinton, on the other hand, enforced the no-fly zones, kept the pressure on Iraq, and as even Bush now admits, Saddam started destroying his WMD under Clinton's watch.

He chased Bin Ladin?

Technically, he pressured Sudan to extradite him, and Osama fled before that could happen. Clinton bombed his facilities, and kept him on the run.

That's why he was able to pull off WTC 1

That's what got Osama on our list.

and 2,

That was after Bush took terrorism off his list of priorities, told the FBI to stop "harassing" the Islamic extremists, and shut down Operation Catcher's Mitt. If Bush had kept up the pressure, it's likely Osama would have continued to be on the defensive.

Clinton never did get the expenditures back in swing.

He got them a lot closer. Raised taxes, cut expenditures, found ways to more efficiently use funds. Reduced non-military government employment to 1960s levels. He increased the number of smart bombs available to the Air Force, and still paid less for them. Things like that.

That was the republican congress that forced his hand.

Revisionist Larry. Remember when Newt threatened to shut down the government unless Clinton gave in to them on the budget. Clinton called their bluff, and forced them to take the package he gave them.

Remember when Clinton told them to reform welfare, but without hurting children? He told Congress that welfare reform would require provisions to make it easier for poor single parents to work. Newt resisted, but Clinton won again. Not only did the government save a huge amount of money, but poverty is down as a result.

The first two years of his presidency are ample evidence to the fact that Clinton was doing nothing about the budget.

Both years, the deficit was reduced. Check the statistical abstract of the United States. Clinton was inagurated in the fall of 1992. Here's the deficit for that year, and for the Clinton years:

1992 -290.4
1993 -255.1
1994 -203.3
1995 -164.0
1996 -164.0
1997 -107.5
1998 -22.0
1999 69.2
2000 125.6

Numbers without minus signs indicate surpluses. They really aren't, but they reflect the accounting methods used by Reagan and Bush, and show how Clinton did relative to his predecessors.

So don't rewrite history. Just recognize that you are wrong.

As usual Larry, you don't know what you're talking about. Go look and learn.

 

[carpro]

Galatian, you are living in a dream world. You never cease to amaze. The lengths to which you go to defend a defenseless position are incredible. You know as well as I do that what you have said above an extremely generous evaluation of what was essentially very bad foreign policy.

Clinton stopped the genocide in Eastern Europe? Those mass graves must be full of mannequins.

Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide in Eastern Europe, but he did put on a great air show.

Only boots on the ground would have actually stopped some of the killing. The killers just stopped on their own after they had accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

 

[The Galatian]

Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide in Eastern Europe,

You don't know what you're talking about. Clinton's intervention was decisive, but it wasn't the air show that did it.

The Bosnians were the majority in Bosnia, all they needed was the equipment to fight the Serbs. But there was a weapons embargo. What Clinton did was relax the embargo. Suddenly, heavy weapons were available to the Bosnians, and suddenly, the Serbs were more interested in negotiations.

The air war was more effective in dealing with Kosovo. Note that Clinton listened to his generals, and the whole thing cost very few casualties.

And yet the genocide in Bosnia came to a halt. As it did later in Kosovo.

Only boots on the ground would have actually stopped some of the killing.

And they did. But it didn't have to be American Boots. The Bosnians were willing to fight for themselves, so long as they had the equipment. They are grateful that Clinton made that possible. In fact, Clinton did to the Iranians what the Iranians did to Reagan; he allowed them to hand over weapons to the Bosnians, in the vain hope that the Bosnians might form an "Islamic Republic." By secretly lifting the embargo, Clinton kept the Russians out of it, and still supplied the Bosnians by a route no one might have suspected being managed by the United States. Slick Willy, indeed.

The killers just stopped on their own after they had accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

Horsepucky. The Croatians and Serbs had planned to divide up Bosnia. Instead, the Serbs had to withdraw, and later were forced to admit they committed war crimes. The architect of genocide, Slobbo Milosevic, ended up in the dock at the Hague. These are facts that you can easily find. If you don't like books, it's probably available on the net.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

 

[ACADEMIC]

Dear Mr. Gettingrich:

All I have to say is, please run, please run, Newt!

We need a guaranteed way to get the neo-cons out of office this time around and a sane democrat in.

Toward that end, enclosed is my $2,000 check for your campaign.

Sincerely,

ACADEMIC

 

[LadyEagle]

The architect of genocide, Slobbo Milosevic, ended up in the dock at the Hague.

True, but he said he was fighting al Qaeda. What we ended up doing through Clinton is creating another muslim state.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/

Sorry to be a party of the hijacking of the Newt thread, but this is important information many people don't realize:

With America's complicity, the United Nations did nothing when its embargo on arms shipments was violated by Iran sending planeloads of arms to Bosnian Muslims. Subsequently, when veteran jihadists came to the country to fight Serbs, the West was also supportive.

The Serbian province of Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed from Serbs, Roma and other non-Albanians while 150 churches and many medieval monasteries have been destroyed during 10 years of U.N. governance.

The mirror showed the duplicitous methods by which world media influenced world opinion. With few exceptions, it has abused its power and professional responsibility, failing to heed Ed Murrow's admonition to examine all sides of a story and aim to elucidate, not advocate. It did the latter and in general continues to advocate an Islamic agenda in Bosnia and Kosovo.

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/wt081506.htm

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
The architect of genocide, Slobbo Milosevic, ended up in the dock at the Hague.

True, but he said he was fighting al Qaeda.

His troops systematically raped schoolgirls in an attempt to get them pregnant. They lined up men and boys and shot them, buring them in mass graves. How is this fighting Al Qaeda.

What we ended up doing through Clinton is creating another muslim state.

Bosnia is Muslim. That's who lives there. Why shouldn't it be a Muslim state?

Enemy propaganda site touted:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/

Sorry. No one beleives that.

Here's something a little more rational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

The rapes were systematic and ordered by commanders. We know that, because a number of Muslim women and girls were taken to rooms by Serb soldiers, were not raped, but were told by the soldiers to tell others that they were raped. Obviously, some of the soldiers did not want to obey the orders to rape girls.

Sorry to be a party of the hijacking of the Newt thread, but this is important information many people don't realize:

Now that we've had a few kind words about genocide...

Americans are welcome and appreciated in Bosnia. No jihadists. They tried to generate interest in an Isalmic republic, but no one had any interest in that. They just wanted to be left alone in their own country to live as they pleased.

Mass graves of Bosnians have been found in place after place where the Serbs rounded up Bosnian civilians. And that is what happened to them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Galatian, you are just making stuff up. The genocide in eastern Europe was in the mid 90s, after Bush was gone. The budget deficits came down because of Republicans, and if Newt hadn’t been weak, they probably would have come down even more. He didn’t cut spending. He did raise taxes, but had he left them alone, tax revenues would likely have increased more than they did, due to the economic situation. Clinton did virtually nothing about terrorism. The chance to avoid 9/11 was on his watch. Clinton did nothing substantial to get Bin Ladin. Bush’s line about flying a missile in a tent and hitting a camel in the butt wasn’t only funny, it was right.

But in the end, none of that really matters. Bush is becoming increasingly ineffective because of bad choices and bad leadership. He started off on the right track but too quickly gave in.

But your rewriting of history is unconscionable. You have been doing it for years, which gives us no hope that you will stop. But we do at least need to point out the truth in contrast to your misleading posts. This is simple stuff.

And BTW, Clinton wasn’t inaugurated in the fall of 92. He was elected in the fall of 92. And the 92 budget was Bush’s, not Clinton’s.

 

[swaimj]

Newt Gingrich is a brilliant tactician and stategist, but he is a poor executive and would make a lousy president. His campaign for the republican nomination will fizzle quickly if he enters at all.

Two republicans to watch are Geroge Allen, if he can recover from the "macacca" incident. The other is Mitt Romney. Will BaptistBoard members vote for a pro-life, conservative and devout Mormom?!?

 

[Daisy]

Two republicans to watch are Geroge Allen, if he can recover from the "macacca" incident. The other is Mitt Romney. Will BaptistBoard members vote for a pro-life, conservative and devout Mormom?!?

More than a few have made it clear that they would not.

 

[The Galatian]

Larry tries a little spin:

The genocide in eastern Europe was in the mid 90s, after Bush was gone.

That's true. It was Congress, not Daddy Bush who wanted to stand by and let it happen. My bad.

The budget deficits came down because of Republicans,

They forced Clinton to raise taxes and cut expenses? C'mon Larry, you know that's not the truth. Clinton did most of that by executive order. And when it came to budgets, Clinton forced the Republicans to do it his way, as he did with welfare reform, all of which cut the deficit.

Do you really think that people would believe that the Republicans can't control the deficit when they have the White House and the Congress, but they can do it when a democrat is president? :laugh:

and if Newt hadn’t been weak, they probably would have come down even more.

The Republicans have full control of Congress and the White House. How much has it come down?

He didn’t cut spending.

Yep. In 1992, federal outlays had risen to 22.1% of GDP. By 2000, Clinton had reduced them to 18.5. (statistical abstract of the United States) He reduced civilian workforce in the federal government to 1960s levels. (same source)

He did raise taxes, but had he left them alone, tax revenues would likely have increased more than they did, due to the economic situation.

Larry, the huge deficits were caused by spending more than we brought in. Repeat after me: "I cannot spend myself rich."

Clinton did virtually nothing about terrorism.

Bombed terrorists, ran Osama out of Africa, set up a program to monitor terrorist financial activity, and tracked known Islamic radicals. All of these, Bush put an end to. Would you like to see the evidence again?

The chance to avoid 9/11 was on his watch. Clinton did nothing substantial to get Bin Ladin. Bush’s line about flying a missile in a tent and hitting a camel in the butt wasn’t only funny, it was right.

It wasn't so funny, when Bush stopped tracking the terrorists, shut down Operation Catcher's mitt, told the FBI to stop "harassing" them, and took terrorism off his list of priorities. One FBI agent quit the Bush administration in protest of Bush's failure to protect us, just beore 9/11. Another testified that he was shocked to learn terrorism wasn't even a priority for Bush.

But in the end, none of that really matters.

It did to several thousand people in the WTC. Bush dropped the ball.

But your rewriting of history is unconscionable.

Go look it up yourself, Larry. C'mon, be honest with yourself. You know it. It's been discussed here before. Go look at the procedings of the 9/11 commission. Go look at the Statistical Abstact of the US. All there.

You have been doing it for years, which gives us no hope that you will stop. But we do at least need to point out the truth in contrast to your misleading posts. This is simple stuff.

Can't spin this one, Larry. Anyone can go look that up. Even you know better, but you'll try to spin it to the end.

And the 92 budget was Bush’s, not Clinton’s.

Yep. That's why the deficit and spending didn't drop until the following year. Go check it out for yourself.

Clinton didn't spend all the money he was alloted, and did many cuts by executive action. "Reinventing Government" reduced paperwork costs for the government, but also for businessmen, who didn't have to fill out so many forms.

So there were savings, albeit minor ones, from the start. The big ones came later.