Amen, brother.
Eric
]]>For example, while skimming Ohio papers, I learned that our first Black president was not Clinton at all – it was Lincoln.:)
As for ‘do nothing’
I think it is useful to remember that prior to 9/11, neither side took the terror threat that seriously. The actions Clinton did take, for example, were widely dismissed as ‘wag the dog’ scenarios, essentially hamstringing future acts. I don’t find Clinton a very compelling or useful president, but I think it is indulging in a significant degree of ex-post facto rationalization to suggest that he was the problem.
A number of the men “in the know” and front and center for Terrorism do actually rate Clinton as more pro-active on terror than the mythology suggests. Richard Clarke is an example of one of the most vocal of these men.
The facts clearly indicate that the new admin continued this indifference – even accellerated it – when they took office in 2000. Rice as NSA actually downgraded Clarke’s role, and removed a seperate terrorism assessment from the daily briefing. Ashcroft re-assigned FBI agents to new priorities, etc. etc. There are plenty of examples.
what this shows is that BOTh sides of the aisle did not consider Terrorism to be the paramount threat, but that by 1999, the Clinton White house was taking it very seriously, only to be largely blown off by the incoming regime.
As for taking action, time will tell. Having studied military history all my life, I believe that I can spot a strategic blunder when I see one. Iraq is a strategic blunder. I’d much rather Bush had done nothing than do the wrong thing.
Dave Powell
]]>I concede your points about Clinton, but surely you can’t believe that Skippy Bush hasn’t been an inept bumbler as Commander in Chief who has grossly mishandled virtually every foreign policy issue that’s arisen, can you?
Eric
]]>Clinton did a better job of protecting us?! Gimme a break!
]]>Dave, you’re so right about the political climate – over the past year or so, especially for Eric’s and my Stuart book, I’ve looked at hundreds of period newspaper articles. Primarily for movement and battle topics, but you can help but get sucked in by the headlines on the front page regarding politics.
Can you imagine if they had our media (TV, internet, radio, etc) back then?
J.D.
]]>What an excellent point! That’s a really interesting analysis, and it’s one I certainly had never even considered.
I want to echo Joe’s sentiment. I’m really proud of all of you for engaging in a very civil and productive discussion about a very difficult topic without any rancor. Keep up the good work.
Eric
]]>But I have a simple question. Some on this thread, along with Bush and Cheney, claim that they’re doing a great job with homeland security and that the proof is that we’ve gone 5 years without another attack by foreign terrorists within America. OK, so according to that the following is true:
There was an attack on the WTC in 1993. Then there wasn’t another attack by foreign terrorists in America until 2001. Clinton was President for seven of those 8 years. Therefore – at this point, Clinton protected our homeland better than Bush has, correct? Seven years versus five. Just a point I often think should be raised but never is. ]]>
I’m with you.
Eric
]]>
s alleged abuses of civil rights have also been documented, perhaps the most famous being his suspension of the writ of habeus corpus.
Perhaps not as well known is his administrationâ€s refusal at the beginning of the war to acknowledge Confederate soldiers and seamen as legitimiate prisoners of war. As with the British in the Revolution, Federal authorities initially treated Rebel prisoners as nothing more than common criminals engaged in treason against the state. (see Sanders†“While in the Hands of the Enemy†for a discussion of this).
IMO, each of these historical scenarios has a comparable one in todayâ€s war on terror. While I am not going to compare the wisdom or character of Bush to the historical Lincoln, I think an argument can be made that both men faced similar challenges and legal issues, not to mention over-the-top hatred from the other side of the political aisle. In Lincolnâ€s case, history has decided the wisdom of his actions, to the point that he is mytholigized by many as the nationâ€s greatest president. Of course, history will also decide the wisdom of Wâ€s decisions. At any rate, I do believe that BOTH men acted with the nationâ€s best interest at heart.
Paul]]>Over 2½ years later and with support for the war wavering in the north, Lincoln decided to change, or add to the stated war aims; that being the abolition of slavery, but first he needed a victory at Antietam before he dared proceed.
Lincoln’s alleged abuses of civil rights have also been documented, perhaps the most famous being his suspension of the writ of habeus corpus.
Perhaps not as well known is his administration’s refusal at the beginning of the war to acknowledge Confederate soldiers and seamen as legitimiate prisoners of war. As with the British in the Revolution, Federal authorities initially treated Rebel prisoners as nothing more than common criminals engaged in treason against the state. (see Sanders’ “While in the Hands of the Enemy†for a discussion of this).
IMO, each of these historical scenarios has a comparable one in today’s war on terror. While I am not going to compare the wisdom or character of Bush to the historical Lincoln, I think an argument can be made that both men faced similar challenges and legal issues, not to mention over-the-top hatred from the other side of the political aisle. In Lincoln’s case, history has decided the wisdom of his actions, to the point that he is mytholigized by many as the nation’s greatest president. Of course, history will also decide the wisdom of W’s decisions. At any rate, I do believe that BOTH men acted with the nation’s best interest at heart.
Paul
]]>