Please help truth-check this (Bush v Clinton)

Great Debates
1

I’m looking for help with fact- and truth-checking and other responses, please.

The following is a reply I received from something I wrote in an email criticizing what I termed “President Bush’s despicable leadership”, and saying that if any Democrat won the 2008 presidential election – including Hillary Clinton – the image of the United States across the world would almost certainly improve, at least over the present situation with Bush in charge.

What follows in this person’s reply to my remark:
First of all, how do you define despicable? He hasn’t raped anyone (like Bill Clinton is accused of doing - many times), he hasn’t dallied with his intern staff (like Bill did), he hasn’t stolen any White House furniture (like Bill and Hillary did). I understand that you don’t like him, but to be called despicable is just plain wrong. Despicable people are child molesters, perverts, drug dealers, people who prey on the elderly, etc. George does not deserve to be called despicable.

Let’s assume for the moment that Hillary becomes President. Will Iran quit building nuclear weapons or quit trying to destroy Israel? Will the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan stabilize and allow the troops to come home without those countries turning into complete chaos and anarchy? Will all of the terrorists in the world stop what they are doing because Hillary is President? Will Hezbollah stop hating Israel? Do we allow Iran to possess nukes?

No, the world will not turn to sweetness and cream if she becomes President. It will not be easy no matter who becomes President. Whoever that is, he or she will have to deal with a large portion of the world who hates us (and has long before either Bush was President), and wants to hurt us in any way they can. Their hate will continue. We are at war with radical Islam, and Hillary becoming President will not change that one iota.

Just an aside, but there is one question that I have not heard a Democratic candidate answer – what would they have done had they been President on 9/11? The anti-Bush crowd insists that it was a mistake to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. Assuming that is true, what would they have done? Work through the U.N. to develop more sanctions? That has a poor track record. Open a dialogue with Saddam and ask him to stop being a bad guy? He laughed at U.N. sanctions.

How would they have answered 9/11? I have never heard that question answered. I can only assume that they would have done nothing concrete, only symbolic. They would have tried to get everyone to come to a consensus, which would never happen. They would still be trying to this day. But if a Democratic President had done exactly what President Bush did, the left would be solidly behind those efforts. And the Republicans would probably be as well, as they had been when we went into Bosnia and Serbia.

One of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11 (besides hate) is that we were perceived to be weak. Osama Bin Laden said as much after President Clinton ordered the troops out of Somalia. He saw that a small gang lord had “bloodied the nose of the Americans”, and they ran away. That is the lesson OBL referred to in one of his videos. He said Americans were weak and would run away from a fight. This of course happened when Bill was President. The troops were sent into Somalia without a clearly defined mission, and they were pulled out when a fight ensued. And Somalia has turned into a disaster. That is leadership?

The planning for 9/11 started while Bill was President. I am not saying that they planned the attack because Bill was President, only that he was President at the time. The terrorists did not care what he had done to save Muslim lives in Bosnia and Serbia. The truth is that our enemies do not care who is President, what we do, or what we have done. They hate us, have always hated us, and they will continue to hate us, and it has nothing to do with who we are today or who is President.

The people who believe that ending the war and bringing the troops home now will solve all of the problems in the world are misguided. If these same people had put as much effort into winning the war as they had in trying to lose it, the whole situation might be very different. Some of the things these people have done would have been considered treason in other times.

The one proven method of beating the terrorists is information. It is finding where there money comes from and stopping it, it is finding out who they are and eliminating them, and in finding out who is aiding and assisting them, and then stopping them. However, the left seems to be trying to impede every effort by our government to identify and destroy the terrorist networks. This is not an intellectual game, but war. Real war. How we as a nation respond to that war will determine if we win or lose it. From my point of view, it certainly looks to me that the left (far left, radical left, whomever…) wants us to lose the war, especially if it embarrasses President Bush. The hate in their messages are so strong that it overrules what is right for this country.

Let me say something about Bill Clinton. He is very smart, very likable, easy going, and totally without courage or morals. He didn’t make a move without consulting polls or trying to determine which way the wind was blowing. He lied as easily as breathing. He had no honor. I feel that he wasted his talents. That is my opinion.

On to Hillary. Little has been said about her college education. She had professors who were, and still are, Marxists. Many have said that she is a true believer. That’s probably a little too much. However, I do believe that she firmly believes in big government and big taxes. I do not. I understand what Gerald Ford meant when he said that “a government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take it all away.”

I will also make a prediction. If a Democrat wins the Presidency, and they continue to control the House and Senate, they will pass huge tax increases. No surprise there. Within 2 years the economy will be in the trashbin. Revenues will decrease as more and more people lose their jobs. (Since the Bush tax cuts have been in place, revenues to the Federal government have never been higher.) Democrats just don’t seem to understand this. The only reason President Clinton did not raise taxes all that much was because the Republican controlled House and Senate didn’t allow him to.

2

The email doesn’t seem to contain any actual facts that need checking, just a lot of gibberish.

If you must respond to his ravings, ask him what the Iraq war had to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. But I’d just let it go.

3

And as for his first paragraph, I’d point out that a lot of his opponents percieve his actions (starting of an unnecessary war under false pretences) as preying on every single person in this country, children, elderly, and otherwise. Thus, it’s perfectly appropriate for people with that POV on the President to call him “despicable.”

4

Accused, but not charged, much less tried and convicted. Bush has been accused of being a coke head. So what?

Eh. It was consensual. He shouldn’t have lied about it, but most men do when caught.

I think that whole thing was overblown at best, and fabricated at worst. What exactly did they steal, and what is the documentation on that?

Strawman. Who says any of those things will happen or not happen if Hillary becomes president.

Who says it will? But it was still a mistake to go into Iraq. No WMDs. No Democracy spreading around the Middle East. The only winner in the Iraq war is Iran. They’re loving every minute of it.

Wrong. Very few people think it was a mistake to go into Afghanistan. What they think is that it was a mistake to leave Afghanistan and go into Iraq. That’s because it was a mistake. The Congressional authorization to go into Afghansitan was almost unanimous. Hillary would’ve done it. Gore would’ve done it. Obama would’ve done it. But not Iraq. That’s Bush’s baby.

Most Democrats are still behind our efforts in Afghanistan. And the Republicans railed against Clinton for bombing Serbia. Wag the dog anyone? Remember that?

We bungled that. But who was president when our troops were pulled out of Lebanon because they were attacked? (Hint: His initials are R.R.)

True. But our going into Iraq has made more of them hate us.

Strawman. No one says bring the troops home from Iraq will solved all our problems. And what, exactly, would have been considered treason? Treason is siding with the enemy against the US. It is not criticizing US policy.

Hand waving. Who, exactly, wants us to lose? What, exactly, is the “far left” the “radical left”, and most of all, who is “whomever”?

An interesting opinion. Not one based on any facts, but an interesting opinion none the less. Sure, Clinton relied on polls. All politicians do that.

Which ones, and what are the quotes of them saying she is a “true believer”? Which ones, exactly, are Marxists? And so what if some are? That was college in the 60s. Marxism was in the air. Some of my college professors were no doubt Marxists. That doesn’t make me one.

Government is bigger under Bush than it was under Clinton. Republicans can no longer claim to be champions of small government.

I expect that the Democrats would raise taxes. I don’t expect that they will pass a “huge” tax increase. But Bush has left us with a deficit that the next generation will have to pay off. Nice little “tax increase” right there.

The economy did just fine under Clinton. In fact, it did quite well. The president doesn’t have that much control over the economy. Tweaking taxes a bit one way or the other is mice nuts.

5

Wow. So to be accused of rape, or to have a consensual affair, or to purloin some taxpayer-funded pieces of furniture (? never heard of that one) is more despicable than recklessness and dishonesty in starting a war that kills thousands of people?

Cite? Yeah sure, Osama bin Laden may have made some uncomplimentary remarks, but ya know, he’s the leader of an anti-Western terrorist organization. It’s part of his job description to insult non-Islamist countries, especially the US as the global hegemon, as much as possible, and to portray them as weak and vulnerable so his minions will be encouraged to attack them. Nowhere have I seen any persuasive evidence that bin Laden really does think that the US is militarily weak or unaggressive, or that such opinions played any significant role in prompting the 9/11 attack. It’s just a speculation that the war advocates use for their own purposes.

Strawman.Nobody believes that an immediate pullout from Iraq “will solve all of the problems in the world”, or anything close to it. [Added in preview: Jinx John Mace, you owe me a Coke! :)]

Oh, they had, had they? You mean these Republicans?

Yeah, real solid support there, all right.

No, what liberals on the whole oppose is the lack of accountability and Big-Brotherish snooping that tries to evade proper authorization and oversight procedures. We don’t have to make a choice between effective intelligence methods and a decent respect for privacy and due process.

So did Bush, of course. Does anybody seriously imagine that Yale professors back in the 60’s weren’t on average just as leftist as Wellesley professors of the same period?

6

Just to start with some of the low-hanging fruit here:

The Bush administration started a war in Iraq that inevitably has led, and will continue to lead to the deaths of innocent people. He justified that decision by claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to use them against us. The information to back up those claims came from within the administration and its departments, and was not available for outside scrutiny. In light of the stakes, I consider Bush to have staked his reputation on it. Those claims turned out to be false. Bush has not taken responsibility for the mistake, held anyone else to account, taken steps to correct it, or changed his approach to Iraq. I consider those to be more glaring faults than anything you have attributed to Bill Clinton.

“Radical Islam” is not a group, nation, or army that acts together. Many people hate the U.S. for many different reasons. No president will change it all, but that doesn’t mean some change is not possible or desireable.

I don’t recall hearing anyone say it was mistake to go into Afghanistan. On the contrary, I have heard criticism that the war in Iraq has diverted resources away from Afghanistan.

I can’t speak for any of the Democratic candidates, but as a response to the September 11th attacks I would have liked to have seen us identify the attackers and those who conspired with and harbored them, found them, and captured or killed them. President Bush vowed to do those things, and he has not.

I believe the hatred we face in the world can be altered, perhaps in a small way, by who we are and what we do. And, even if it can not, we should live up to our own principles of justice and honor. That means that we should not torture people, or hold them without charge or the opportunity to challenge their captivity.

Such as revealing the identity of an agent of the government? Revealing that as an effort to discredit her husband for bringing information to light that disagreed with the claims of the administration? Information that proved to be true?

I don’t believe that’s true. Just because someone’s analysis of a situation does not agree with yours does not mean their motives are venal or vindictive.

How would you define “winning” and “losing” in this context? What steps would you take to bring about the desired outcome, and have those methods shown the desired results so far?

I find that statement quite at odds with the previous paragraph, in which you criticize the left for displaying hatred of President Bush.

In the early 1980’s, I had a paper route. As I was getting the papers ready, I read the headlines. I still remember a mention that the national debt had gone over one-trillion dollars. That was during the administration of (alleged) conservative Ronald Reagan. Since then, the deficit and debt have gone up during Republican presidencies, and down while Bill Clinton was in office. I do not give him sole credit for that, but I consider it a worthwhile accomplishment.

I can’t verify your statement that federal revenues have never been higher, but it may be true, now. However, what about the revenue that the government gave up during the first years of the tax cut? We could have used that money to pay bills, instead we borrowed and now have to pay interest. Does the revenue now make up for the incresed debt service burdening the government because of the tax cut? I have read studies that it does not.

And in general, if the government wishes to do things that cost money, such as 2.4-trillion dollars to conduct the war in Iraq, they should have to find some way to pay for it. I consider it despicable to pass that burden on to future generations. I think that there is an interesting argument to made for true conservatism. No prominent Republican during my lifetime has ever made it.

7

It is always true, eventually. That’s because the population and the economy of the US are constantly growing, so the absolute amount of dollar revenues always ends up in the long run being bigger than it used to be.

That doesn’t mean that tax cuts don’t and haven’t reduced revenues in the short term, though. As economist James Surowiecki put it in a recent article,

8

Correction: there is a small, vocal, and violent minority of the world who will always hate us. The large majority of the world wants to like the United States, but they’ve been insulted and alienated by a foreign policy that wants to bully other countries whether they are foe or friend. The President of the United States used to be known as the leader of the free world, but it is imminently clear that very few in the free world want to be led by George Bush. Odds are excellent that whoever is elected, whether Democrat or Republican, the free world will breathe a collective sigh of relief and give the new guy a chance to regain their trust.

Somalia was a disaster. Yes, blame can be placed on Clinton, but George HW Bush made the biggest mistake in sending troops into Somalia in the first place, leaving his mess for the next president to sort out, much like a Bay of Pigs fiasco. Where were these prescient voices calling for us to stay in Somalia and fight it out? Nowhere. Would 9/11 still happen if we had stayed in a pointless war in Somalia? Almost certainly. Ever think of why the bad guys weren’t deterred from attacking the WTC the first time or Khobar Towers after seeing how the US kicked Iraq’s ass in 1991? Because enemies always find a way to portray their opponent as weak. And if it really needs pointing out, these policies of “strength” such as refusing to change course in Iraq are acknowledged by just about every foreign policy expert – including the CIA – as being a terrific recruiting tool for terrorists.

Perhaps that comment would be more appropriately directed as Donald Rumsfeld rather than those exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize the government on the mistakes that are being made in our country’s name. Rumsfeld seemed to go to great lengths to make sure that the post-war occupation was as big a clusterfuck as humanly possible. You can’t blame what’s wrong in Iraq on those who were trying to speak out against the mistakes Bush and others made that created the situation we have today.

So, if Clinton is elected, will you refuse to criticize her on the basis that the criticism weakens the country? If not, why do you condemn those who criticize Bush for taking actions that are in fact weakening our country as we speak?

9

Kimstu and John Mace have done an admirable job. I’ll just add a few more.

This is an oversimplification of the way the world is. Yes, it is true that there are people who will hate us no matter what. And, we will always have to be on our guard against such people. However, one of the better ways to deal with them is to marginalize them by creating a situation where most of the civilized world is on our side. The 9/11 attacks actually created that feeling amongst much of the world (Le Monde saying something like “We are all Americans now”) and Bush completely blew that good-will by going into Iraq. I won’t go as far as saying that Bush is actually a recruitment agent for Al Qaeda but I will say that he has probably done more for the recruitment cause than any such agent could in his wildest dreams.

It may be true that Clinton consulted polls and used that to help decide his policies. However, I much prefer that to the method of deciding policies on the basis not of fact or polls but purely in terms of your ideology and the narrow self-interests of your friends and supporters and then using polls and focus groups to determine how to most effectively deceive the American people into supporting that policy. That is what we have now.

Strange that these same predictions were made when Bill Clinton was elected and when he passed tax increases (e.g., in around 1997). In fact, tax revenues reached all-time highs in terms of their percentage of the GDP (while spending as a percentage of GDP actually fell to historically low levels and thus we even briefly had a budget surplus).

As for the Bush tax cuts and higher revenues, this is utter B.S. If you look at revenues in any sort of coherent way (e.g., at the very least adjusting for inflation and, better yet, as a percentage of the GDP) then in fact those revenues dropped precipitously following the Bush tax cuts, just as they did following the Reagan tax cuts (although one has to analyze that data carefully because Reagan ended up passing significant tax increases on social security that partly balanced out the loss of revenues from his income tax cuts…the data is clearer if you look at income tax and social security revenues separately). Yes, over time, they eventually do recover somewhat but in fact this myth that supply side policies of cutting taxes lead to higher revenues is so discredited by historical experience that it is amazing that anyone still actually believes it. [See the Historical Tables in the latest Federal Budget for details.]

10

It’s an interesting question, focusing on the comparison of each man’s weaknesses. Clinton was a womanizer, and Bush had his issues with controlled substances, including at least one DUI arrest. Check out http://www.bushwatch.com/dwi2.htm and : George W. Bush and Dick Cheney D.U.I./D.W.I | OpEd News or perhaps you can find a better-known publication… Google is your friend. That DUI arrest was not just accusations, mind you, but bona fide arrest.

I’ve never heard that furniture stealing accusation, either, and wonder what in the world these lawyers (the Clintons, not the wealthy but non-lawyer Bushes) would be doing stealing something, particularly since they live comfortably already, and are very consciously in the public spotlight. Sounds like a made-up smear, since it’s so illogical, but I have no proof, sorry – even checked on snopes.

I agree that the accusation a Democrat would put the nation in further debt is ludicrous. George W. Bush has spent so much on the military-industrial complex, I fear for my children’s generation – they will never be able to pay off the enormous debts he has racked up, nor continue to pay the hundreds of thousands of new federal workers (security forces) he has hired. I miss the Clinton surplus.

There are interesting statistics on the Bush debt here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics/15debt.html Here’s a great quote: “Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003.” And that was written in 2004; with more googling you may strike real pay dirt. Articles on the deficit are at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25budget.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Federal%20Budget%20(US)
and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18deficit.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/F/Federal%20Budget%20(US)
and an article about Bush’s policies not benefiting the middle class is here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E6D91F31F934A35753C1A9619C8B63
Fun opinion articles here: National Debt Graph 1940 -- 2020: Zooming Again

And here’s something on Bush and the national debt from **CBS News, in 2007 **(perfect?): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/16/politics/main2939036.shtml

Tell us how it goes.

11

I think the posters in this thread have done an admirable job of debunking this claptrap, but I have to wonder at this point why anybody bothers with idiots like this (not ambushed, but the person he quotes). Debating these clowns legitimizes their frame; it’s like the “teach the debate” strategy Intelligent Design uses to bamboozle local school boards.

The only thing this guy needs is a healthy dose of ridicule and scorn; his post proves his ignorance, so let it stand as is. There’s a reason legitimate historians don’t argue with Holocaust deniers…

12

My considerable gratitude goes out to all those who have replied. Excellent work, all!

To demonstrate that I have not been shirking my own responsibility to research these claims (I’ve actually spent a goodly amount of time doing so), let me just provide a resource on the whole “Clinton furniture theft” business.

The GAO actually investigated those claims, and issued a report in June 2002 (under the auspices of Bob Barr, notably). The full report is a large, 1041 kb pdf file: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition.

Here’s the exhaustive list of the items allegedly stolen (or were otherwise missing):

Note the complete absence of anything one would describe as furniture.

Next, I quote the GAO’s official conclusions. The quotation begins from the very start of the Conclusions section and covers the relevant issue of theft of the ONLY items actually reported stolen or missing by the White House:

Note, please, that nothing was stolen, or even alleged to have been stolen, by the Clintons themselves.
Finally (for now), let me respond to the following:

Oh, yes, admirable indeed.

But you see, I would never have asked for help debunking this if this were merely spam or came from some random freeper or dittohead or something. No, the bullshit material I quoted in blue in the OP comes directly from a relative whose political opinions and viewpoints, depressingly, hold overwhelming sway within our extended family.

I feel it is essential to poke as many documented, legitimate holes in that rubbish and the perspective it comes from as possible, which is why I turned for help to the most astute and intellectually honest group of people I know: the SDMB.

Again, thanks go out most enthusiastically to all who have replied!

13

And of course the only way tax cuts can lead to higher revenues is by increasing the growth of the economy by more than the taxes were cut by. But (using Table 1.2 at the link) GDP grew at 5.45% a year from 1993-2001 and is projected by OMB to grow at 5.38% from 2001-2009. So Bush’s tax cuts are having about the same effect on GDP as Clinton’s tax hikes did.

14

Some truly excellent work by many of you, no need to repeat what was said so well.

Bill didn’t have an affair with someone that reports directly to him. Enough said for now.

I think the compelling reason for the attack was that US troops were in Muslim Saudi Arabia.

The one thing that I fully agree with. However, it is not necessary to spy on Americans illegally and without warrants, it is not necessary to torture, and it is not necessary to hold anyone the US wants indefinitely without trial. It is possible to fight terrorism without turning the US into a rogue police state, which is what the Bush administration is doing.

15

I wonder if anyone has any references or whatnot to this very specific question from the OP:

Robot Arm issued what I consider an exemplary response:

(Perhaps Robot Arm should consider throwing his hat into the ring!)

Surely at least one of the Democratic candidates has publicly answered that question. It need not have been while they were actively campaigning for the 2008 Presidential race, but surely during one interview or another.

And does anyone know of any comments from foreign leaders indicating they’d like to see a Democrat in office, specifically Hillary?

16

Not to conflate the two sets of misdeeds. Clinton staffers trashed the White House before they left to the tune of about $19,000.
[

](http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200206/13/eng20020613_97755.shtml)

We have hashed this out several times on the SDMB, it is a documented fact, anyone who says otherwise is lying.

The Clintons also stole several thousand dollars worth of furniture, but agreed to return some of it after it became public. Cite. The rest of the e-mail is mostly opinion, and non-falsifiable.

Regards,
Shodan

17

Good heavens, that horse is dead and no longer requires beating.

It looks like an honest disagreement on whether the furniture was given to the Clintons personally or to the White House permanently. They thought, and perhaps still do, that it was theirs and had it moved out. Then a brief controversy arose over it and they returned it. End of story. BFD.

18

Ain’t *no * horse too dead to beat, pardner.

19

IOW, the fact-checking finds that the e-mail is accurate.

Now we need three pages of denial and obfuscation to balance the Force. Have at it.

Regards,
Shodan

20

So if one accusation out of fifty or so might have some sort of basis in fact behind it, the other forty nine magically become true to?? :confused: :dubious: