Jackie Calmes of the Wall Street Journal writes about the contrast between Clinton and Bush on the priority they gave the war on terror:
Posted by DeLong at April 29, 2004 08:44 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postWSJ.com - Iraq Low on Clinton's Concern List: CLINTON RANKED IRAQ low on a list of security concerns he gave Bush. When the two spoke privately at inauguration time, Clinton put al Qaeda at the top of his list of national-security concerns, with Iraq behind the Mideast, North Korea and India and Pakistan, according to one outsider who recently heard Clinton's account. It is confirmed by several former Clinton aides from the time. Bush, by contrast, already had called for regime change in Iraq...
Clinton was competent. That virtue went unappreciated by the American public (and the Congress who tried to impeach Clinton and the press who cheered them on) and now we get to see the full meaning and power of presidential incompetence. Thanks, all you voters infatuated with tough-guy-bravado with a dash of downhome texas style. How do you like your sons and daughters as target practice for jihadists? How do you like getting screwed by a member of the ultra elite with 'the common touch'? Does that make it feel good? The world is one big party now. Government by gut, not policy. Forget policy! Who cares when you've got a presidential dude who knows how to strut across an aircraft carrier!!
Right! Right?
Posted by: camille roy on April 29, 2004 08:57 PMOff topic, I really like the mix of your posts today, Professor DeLong: a bit of hardball politics, a bit of economics and a bit of math etc. It's almost artistically pleasing, like a collage of sort, with one mind as the common thread. No irony intended, I just like the mix, really. It's also like a good, well balanced intellectual meal for the hungry mind! :-)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on April 29, 2004 09:35 PMP.S. Gee, I am starting to look forward to Clinton's bio, there may well be a crispy thing here and there...
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on April 29, 2004 09:37 PMI agree with the first commentator, but then again--it's really all Clinton's fault--because he's not Bush's god or (unfortunately for most of us) not accepted by Bush as a symbol or voice of his god. Remember Bush said, when asked if he discussed his incredibly stupid decisions regarding Iraq with his father, Bush said that he'd spoken to a "higher father" -or something like that. So if Clinton had somehow been able to manage to be perceived by Bush as a messenger or envoy from this "higher father" he might've paid some attention to what Clinton said. Thus, according to Bushian logic, the mess in Iraq, plus anything else that's happened that hasn't gone over well, is Clinton's fault.
All this higher father stuff has made me wonder how Bush perceives Karen Hughes. Another virgin Mary? One of the elect?
Posted by: azurite on April 29, 2004 09:48 PMIraq is Bush's personal war. O'neill made that clear when he revealed that getting rid of Saddam was on Bush's agenda from day one.
2976 Americans killed by terrorists on 9-11
736 Americans killed (and counting) by Bush in his personal war since 3-20-2003
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
10,000 Iraqi civilians killed (and counting) by Bush in his personal war since 3-20-2003
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount_date_down.htm
Posted by: Dubblblind on April 29, 2004 10:08 PMIf Clinton were to talk about war dead, do you think he would only talk about our dead and not say anything about Iraqi civilian deaths? You should read his speech he gave to Arab intellectuals and politicians at Doha, Qatar a couple of months ago.
A tour de force and Clinton at the top of his game - would bring one to tears, when one thinks about what Repubs did to that man.
Given that bin Laden announced--during the Clinton Administration--that he attacked us BECAUSE we had "infidel troops" on Saudi soil, protecting that country from Iraq, Clinton's obtuseness is stunning.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on April 30, 2004 07:10 AMPatrick Sullivan has always struck me as easily, indeed steadily, stunned. Clinton, however is not to blame.
The fact that bin Laden objected to our troops being in among the oil fields was no doubt one of the reasons for Clinton putting a high priority on combatting Al Quaeda. That this makes Clinton look like a competent administrator of empire, as opposed to the fool we have in at the moment, is a frisson.
As I recall, the 'infidel troops' on Saudi soil were originally placed there by Bush I as part of operation Desert Storm.
Posted by: non economist on April 30, 2004 08:51 AMClinton was a look good, feel good, smell good President who just couldn't/wouldn't bring himself to doing anything serious about Al-Quada. Maybe the closest analogy in history is Nero. Yes, Slick Willy would have made a good Nero.
Too bad we don't have Julius Ceasar running the war in Iraq. "Iraqia ist dividia tres."
Posted by: Lawrence on April 30, 2004 09:43 AMJ-P Stijn,
We're still missing literature, which is odd, ya know? Usually, there is at least a bit of Sci-Fi lurking in the corners. I could go for some Breton Lay. Couldn't you?
Posted by: K Harris on April 30, 2004 09:54 AMLawrence, not only is the Clinton-hating old, it's rather foolish and reveals you as ill-informed.
Did it at least make you feel better?
Posted by: howard on April 30, 2004 03:24 PMLawrence, I do hope you're not proposing that we govern Iraq the way Caesar governed Gaul -- that is, by deliberately slaughtering hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants, as coolly and unemotionally described in his famous diary.
On the other hand, dividing Iraq into tres partes may not be such a bad idea. We might conceivably have a chance of not getting thrown out of all tres of the partes that way (as pointed out by Gelb and Galbraith).
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on April 30, 2004 06:36 PMWell, all of this is now superfluous. As the New Republic notes, we probably lost the war -- all the war -- today:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=1618
Be sure and follow the URL links both to the pictures and to the enraged commentary by "Sgt. Stryker", conservative Republican hawk. And when you read Stryker's comments, note the real money passage in the middle of it, in which Master Torturer Chip Frederick says that US military intelligence has been enthusiastically encouraging him to do this sort of thing from the time the war started -- and that he's ready to name names.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on April 30, 2004 07:55 PMThe assertion that Clinton had terrorism right while the Republicans had it wrong is silly and recklessly partisan; neither had it right. I served in the Administration under Clinton, and let me tell you, national security policy was always a struggle. (Yes, it is still a struggle under the Republicans.)
The planning for 9-11 began under Clinton. The plotters took flight training under Clinton. Our embassies in Africa were attacked under Clinton. The Cole was attacked under Clinton. Etc.
The critical fact is that the public sector failed us under both Clinton and Bush administrations.
Posted by: Jim Harris on May 3, 2004 05:58 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: consolidate debt on June 1, 2004 12:36 PMGet WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!
Posted by: dish network on June 3, 2004 07:56 AMWWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM
Posted by: creditcard debt on June 5, 2004 10:46 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: debt relief on June 7, 2004 03:27 PMGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!
Posted by: out of debt on June 14, 2004 03:38 AMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: online casinos on June 23, 2004 04:22 AMNow you can Play Poker online any time!
Posted by: online poker on June 25, 2004 04:10 AMBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today.
Posted by: Viagra on June 29, 2004 03:42 AMyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
Posted by: blackjack on July 21, 2004 03:45 PMonline casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
Posted by: online casino on July 25, 2004 05:27 PMonline casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
Posted by: onine casinos on July 26, 2004 04:47 PM5875 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 8, 2004 03:22 AM995 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
6655 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 01:43 PM7113 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 16, 2004 03:37 PM