Tribe.net. Local Connections Brian Landon http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#8a7b1174-b7ce-4b20-86a4-279035c94951 2008-12-25T16:16:04Z 2008-12-25T16:16:04Z

Clinton remembered: Always the darling of the ladies! Everyone seems to forget that a series of lies beginning when he was governor of Arkansas began the whole mess and process. And with Hillary's recent lie about being caught in crossfire in Bosnia, she's proven that she is just like Bill--- two liars or is that lawyers?? As for Osama Bin Laden. Well, everyone also forgets how ole Bill ignored a series of events that eventually led to 9/11 including the attack on the WTC in 1993-- a test of sorts by Al Quaida. Then there is the unresponsiveness of the Clinton Administration to the attacks abroad at embassies and on American targets abroad. What did lame Bill do? Send a single cruise missile after Bin Laden! Poof! That was a joke in itiself. The Sudanese offered to turn over Bin Laden and a number of his followers in 1996 but Clinton balked and blew that one. Two of those followers were two of the highjackers who flew into the WTC. Then of course, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1999 pushed through and signed by Clinton, the Democrats and some of the Republicans. One lone voice against it-- was John McCain -- he was chastised by everyone. Who would have thought then that giving away homes to those who could never afford it, would have brought the walls of the US crumbling down. The credit practices were abysmal. If you can't afford it, you don't buy it! And if you have no real investment in something like a house, you don't deserve it Then again, what we can remember about the Clinton era is that sense of invincibility by Americans, that the economy would boom forever, that there wold be no bubble bursting Now the US is in one hell of a mess. The end of the American empire? of American influence? I'm sure you'll be trying to print more money and spending your way out of this one. The American age , envisioned by FDR is over, boys and girls! And now as American will be forced to hide itself as it did in the 20's and 30's-- the new empire will be rising, unfortunately or not, China. How sad, all it brought about by collective greed and even greedier Leaders!

Brian Landon 2008-12-25T16:16:04Z Lupo http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#f681a9bb-5830-4cc9-b671-369da284bac0 2006-03-28T01:52:09Z 2006-03-28T01:52:09Z

"Just imagine the power the League would have had if USA was in it during WW2...maybe Hitler would have thought twice?" The US barely had a military in the 20s and 30s, and was considered a degenerate mongrel nation by the "leading lights" of fascism. I doubt as a glorified talking club for assorted white imperialists would have deterred Hitler and Mussolini's aggressions whether or not it had the US as a member. It's later incarnation certainly didn't deter any wars or genocides by belligerant powers. When the history books are written, Kofi Annan's great claim to fame will have been his presiding over the Rwanda massacre. Nice one, UN. Almost as effective as the glorious NATO invasion of Serbia. IMO, a better transnational institution would be a formalization of the relationship between democratic former British colonies, like America and India. -Lupo

Lupo 2006-03-28T01:52:09Z Mihalis http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#b0cc5a53-a612-46da-89d7-e7efd37f5751 2006-03-24T02:58:11Z 2006-03-24T02:58:11Z

I know he was ill during that time but that's no excuse for NOT getting the senate to join the League of Nations which he put together. LAME! Just imagine the power the League would have had if USA was in it during WW2...maybe Hitler would have thought twice? Just a thought.

Mihalis 2006-03-24T02:58:11Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#abce60da-7416-4bce-b4f4-b36680b20e0d 2006-03-23T21:11:50Z 2006-03-23T21:11:50Z

That was #4 . . . Wilson had some excuse, in that he had suffered a massive stroke and was an invalid at the time the treaty was being argued in the Senate . . . Certainly, the U.S. failure to join the League was a grave error, but putting all the blame on Wilson would be unfair, since he was one of the League's chief supporters. http://www.americanpresident.org/history/woodrowwilson/

Forrest 2006-03-23T21:11:50Z Mihalis http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#2decce64-e510-4b7f-ba07-01e5f2cc331a 2006-03-23T10:48:56Z 2006-03-23T10:48:56Z

1. Woodrow Wilson, not allowing the US to join The League of Nations. Bad move. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww40.htm

Mihalis 2006-03-23T10:48:56Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#782677de-a434-4d8f-b8f0-d29ae63c2588 2006-03-22T11:05:40Z 2006-03-22T11:05:40Z

>>Mmmmm, I'd say these Acts were used as precidents by the supremes in quite a few bits of subsequent naughiness, such as the internment of Japanese, Italian and German people during WW-2. Actually, the Supreme Court did not take notice of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1944 Korematsu decision. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Korematsu/ >>The all time greatest blunder was almost certainly Andrew Johnson's decision to appease other southern democrats by institutionalizing (or at least allowing) racial aparthied laws. That is listed as #2, though I agree with those who assigned #1 to Buchanan's failure to prevent the Civil War.

Forrest 2006-03-22T11:05:40Z Lupo http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#06070543-93b5-4077-911b-131c243d64fa 2006-03-22T04:29:00Z 2006-03-22T04:28:35Z

Mmmmm, I'd say these Acts were used as precidents by the supremes in quite a few bits of subsequent naughiness, such as the internment of Japanese, Italian and German people during WW-2. Though really, such emergency acts were anticipated and more or less approved by the founding fathers (who saw the president as an offical sort of like a Roman Consul or Dictator). The all time greatest blunder was almost certainly Andrew Johnson's decision to appease other southern democrats by institutionalizing (or at least allowing) racial aparthied laws. The republicans of the time actually managed to partially override his vetos and pass the civil rights act of 1866, but it was all but defanged by this ninnies shennanegins. Incidentally, that whole thing showed the weakness of the previous vice presidential system (VP chosen from the opposition party). It rather made assasination more likely. In fact, it should be a rule that nobody with that last name gets to be anywhere near being a president. -Lupo

Lupo 2006-03-22T04:28:35Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#c31a9dd4-14e3-4e9a-b0ed-74885d7ebde5 2006-02-28T01:01:00Z 2006-02-28T01:01:00Z

That was certainly a blunder . . . however, the Acts expired under Jefferson's presidency, so they didn't create any precedents, and their long-term consequences were minimal . . .

Forrest 2006-02-28T01:01:00Z philip http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#3fda27f9-8965-4073-aad1-863a0f0c0df9 2006-02-27T15:37:24Z 2006-02-27T15:37:24Z

I'm surprised that John Adams didn't get onto that list for his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

philip 2006-02-27T15:37:24Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#5e37475d-b580-4a31-b523-3d4e8678d13b 2006-02-26T22:05:27Z 2006-02-26T22:05:27Z

>>Why aren't they on the list (Darfur presumably wouldn't be because it's ongoing)? They aren't on the list because it is a list of blunders by U.S. Presidents, which are ranked according to their historical importance to the United States. If you want to consider all of the world's problems for the last 200 years, that would be a different list. >>Well, I guess you could say that, except that Clinton already took responsibility for it in his memoirs and in various interviews after his term. So it seems you'd have to argue it with him as to whether the apologist tactic is a valid one to take. If was very conscientious of Clinton to blame himself for massacres in Rwanda, but I would have to say that those primarily responsible were the leaders of Rwanda and not of the United States. The U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, but there are limits to that power and to the authority it can exert in distant parts of the world. Where the United States has intervened in the internal affairs of foreign countries . . . for example, in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia and Iraq . . . it has often created more problems than it has solved.

Forrest 2006-02-26T22:05:27Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#798908e2-10a6-4339-982d-f58f95fcd1d4 2006-02-26T04:28:45Z 2006-02-26T04:28:45Z

>If you look at a map, you will see that Rwanda is a landlocked country . . . We had no way of getting there, except through neighboring countries . . . who might or might not have given their permission . . . This is just speculation, but I think we could've used airbases in Kenya, possibly in Uganda, especially if the US had promised aid or assistance in exchange for the help like we'd done in the past. It's not like we had to fly over China. For that matter, launching isn't really the issue either, Cargo craft launching from carriers have very long ranges, made longer with in-flight refueling. The US would've really just needed a place to drop military supplies and personnel. That wasn't an issue during the Rwandan conflict, the US was able to airdrop aid even if they chose not to be involved. I would assume they had some governments permission to conduct that. UN troops were able to fly in and do their part, somebody obviously gave their permission for that to happen. >being an American, I see we are making a similar kind of faulty decision in Darfur, so I would have to say that the failure in Rwanda didn't lead to any significant changes . . . I would question its importance to the United States. The real importance is more of the US reputation abroad. Since the US contributes the most funding to the UN of any country, the US failing to act really hinders the UN. While this is really more of a problem with other countries contributions, the US is the richest country in the world and is expected to step up to the plate. I don't doubt that as an American living in America, this contribution, or lack thereof at the time, doesn't concern you. What's troubling me is that an international mistake like that (where nearly 1 million people were slaughtered) has no place on the list, but of all things, the Lewinsky Affair (which you still can't directly prove has any real basis on events now) has a place. >You might also ask why we failed to intervene in Darfur or the Congo or Liberia . . . Or whether we could have done something to prevent Pol Pot from slaughtering a million of his fellow Cambodians . . . And then there's the thorny question of whether FDR could have saved the Jews . . . Actually, I agree with you there. Why aren't they on the list (Darfur presumably wouldn't be because it's ongoing)? Some of the worst of the Liberian civil war happened on Clinton's watch again. Lemme guess, that was because of the Lewinsky Affair? >I would have reservations about making the President responsible for events in distant foreign countries where the United States has no sovereignty or legal authority . . . In such cases, the President's responsibility is, at most, indirect. Well, I guess you could say that, except that Clinton already took responsibility for it in his memoirs and in various interviews after his term. So it seems you'd have to argue it with him as to whether the apologist tactic is a valid one to take. Personally, I would have reservations about listing a single scandal with no real bearing on events afterwards as one of the worst mistakes a President has made in American History, but there you go.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-26T04:28:45Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#4f751a1d-ef6b-4929-b118-4d7d8692c357 2006-02-26T03:47:22Z 2006-02-26T03:47:22Z

>>Well, that's why the Navy has Aircraft Carriers to make deployment just that much easier If you look at a map, you will see that Rwanda is a landlocked country . . . We had no way of getting there, except through neighboring countries . . . who might or might not have given their permission . . . >>Regardless, even without our floating airbases, the US would've used the same facilities the eventual UN peace keeping force used, as a UN-deployed force. The fact that these facilities were now in hostile hands (the same ones who were holding the U.N. virtually hostage) might have been a hindrance to this plan . . . >>I'm curious though, you asked me to provide an alternate #10 to the list, do you you think Clinton's failure to act in Rwanda would've made a better addition to the list? Or do you think Lewinsky Affair should stay? If I were a Rwandan, I would definitely favor the former . . . and a lot higher than #10 . . . being an American, I see we are making a similar kind of faulty decision in Darfur, so I would have to say that the failure in Rwanda didn't lead to any significant changes . . . I would question its importance to the United States. >>I suspect Webb's reason was closer to the reason they left it on the list. The article also cites the Rwandan Genocide as "suspect from the omissions", so sayeth a fellow Democrat. Rwanda is merely one of many cases in genocide in which we failed to intervene . . . You might also ask why we failed to intervene in Darfur or the Congo or Liberia . . . Or whether we could have done something to prevent Pol Pot from slaughtering a million of his fellow Cambodians . . . And then there's the thorny question of whether FDR could have saved the Jews . . . While these are all serious questions, they are also somewhat off the track . . . While we can say that Madison was largely responsible for the War of 1812 and that Buchanan bore much responsibility for the Civil War, I would have reservations about making the President responsible for events in distant foreign countries where the United States has no sovereignty or legal authority . . . In such cases, the President's responsibility is, at most, indirect.

Forrest 2006-02-26T03:47:22Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#5afc1e15-51b4-498d-88c3-282e24734066 2006-02-26T02:48:00Z 2006-02-26T02:48:00Z

>The lack of friendly airbases in the region would have hindered a redeployment . . . which would have been politically difficult to justify in any case . . . As you point out, the Somalia experience had soured us on humanitarian interventions in Africa . . . We are presently trying to avoid the subject of genocide in Darfur . . . Certainly, though, Clinton's failure even to recognize genocide when he saw it was a mistake. Well, that's why the Navy has Aircraft Carriers to make deployment just that much easier. Regardless, even without our floating airbases, the US would've used the same facilities the eventual UN peace keeping force used, as a UN-deployed force. I'm curious though, you asked me to provide an alternate #10 to the list, do you you think Clinton's failure to act in Rwanda would've made a better addition to the list? Or do you think Lewinsky Affair should stay? Or do you think both should be on the list? >Read it more closely . . . Your quotation comes from "David Webb, 53, a salesman from Nashville" . . . He picked Vietnam as #1 and the Lewinsky Scandal as #2. I suspect Webb's reason was closer to the reason they left it on the list. The article also cites the Rwandan Genocide as "suspect from the omissions", so sayeth a fellow Democrat. I couldn't find an article that really got into the depth of why the items on the list were chosen, this article was as close as I could get. If the reason the Lewinsky Affair is on the list is a choice between your view that Lewinsky "tarnished a sterling presidency" and it "intensified partisan politics", I will take the latter view thanks it seems more directly provable.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-26T02:48:00Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#7a061aae-b854-4dbf-bdc3-08924ecc1a88 2006-02-25T08:55:40Z 2006-02-25T08:55:40Z

>>I'm sorry, was Clinton impeached for some other reason? Not that I know of, but impeachment is not mentioned here . . . It is likely that the impeachment created sympathy for Clinton . . . his approval raitings actually went up. >>You cited job performance facts which I already explained made little sense as far as the Lewinsky Affair's effect upon Bush's election. I did not cite any "job performance facts," but rather election results, showing that approval of Clinton correlates very closely with the state-by-state election results, and that Bush benefitted more than Gore. >>I cited statistics that corroborated your claim that Clinton's popularity was high. I then cited stats that explained the trust level in Clinton was low. As we have seen in the case of the present administration, the perceived untrustworthiness of the President can tarnish his whole administration and damage the position of his party. >>Second-term presidents historically don't get as much done as they do in the first-term, so what extra work exactly would he have gotten done had his time not been taken up with Lewinsky remains to be seen. Obviously, he could have accomplished more than if he wasn't being impeached. >Think the war will be over by then? >>Bush's presidency will be. Until we know the outcome of the war, it will be difficult to judge Bush's legacy . . . but we already know Clinton's. >>It only take 72 hours to mobilize American troops. He could've boosted the number of UN troops on the ground which might've had a stabilizing effect... The lack of friendly airbases in the region would have hindered a redeployment . . . which would have been politically difficult to justify in any case . . . As you point out, the Somalia experience had soured us on humanitarian interventions in Africa . . . We are presently trying to avoid the subject of genocide in Darfur . . . Certainly, though, Clinton's failure even to recognize genocide when he saw it was a mistake. >> the historians who compiled the list stated the reason they chose the Lewinsky Affair over other events is because "it intesified partisan politics" Read it more closely . . . Your quotation comes from "David Webb, 53, a salesman from Nashville" . . . He picked Vietnam as #1 and the Lewinsky Scandal as #2.

Forrest 2006-02-25T08:55:40Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#de97d764-edf4-4495-a9cd-983384e227ca 2006-02-25T03:32:28Z 2006-02-25T03:32:28Z

>There is no reference to either impeachment. I'm sorry, was Clinton impeached for some other reason? >I cited the facts, which show that Clinton benefited Bush more than Gore. You cited job performance facts which I already explained made little sense as far as the Lewinsky Affair's effect upon Bush's election. Statistics cited out of context are just numbers. Find some direct evidence and I will soften this viewpoint. >Now you change your tune: You just cited statistics showing that most people considered him untrustworthy and were glad he was leaving office . . . No, In fact I cited statistics that corroborated your claim that Clinton's popularity was high. I then cited stats that explained the trust level in Clinton was low. Here's the poll again to save you the time of scrolling up: -------------------------------------- Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy? Yes 39% No 58 -------------------------------------- Notice that no mention is made to his popularity. Nor his job performance. >Considering that the Lewinsky Affair and subsequent impeachment proceedings took up much of Clinton's time for two years, it obviously affected both. Second-term presidents historically don't get as much done as they do in the first-term, so what extra work exactly would he have gotten done had his time not been taken up with Lewinsky remains to be seen. During that period, he managed to stay on top of world affairs long enough to get Arafat and Barak to sit down together at Camp David. >Think the war will be over by then? Bush's presidency will be. >Clinton had little choice but to withdraw: Bush had sent an inadequate and under-equipped force into a lawless and chaotic country (sound familiar?) . . . Clinton's choices were to reinforce (risking a Vietnam-like escalation) or to pull out . . . Pulling out was not a major blunder, it was a reasonable decision under the circumstances. . . Good point, and fair enough, I withdraw that one. Instead I submit the inaction regarding the Rwandan Genocide the Somalian pullout resulted in. Or do I only get one chance? I only wish that you or I had the ability to rewrite the list! >It was certainly a blunder not to recognize the Rwandan Genocide . . . however, it all took place in a period of less than three months, so it is questionable how much he could have done about it . . . It only take 72 hours to mobilize American troops. He could've boosted the number of UN troops on the ground which might've had a stabilizing effect... More troops and intelligence on the ground might've pinpointed the genocide before it really got rolling. At the very least, more troops could've been used to guard aid shipments to the people during the crisis. Clinton himself acknowledged after his presidency that the one regret he had of his foreign policy track record was this mistake. Now, to wrap this debate up, for better or for worse... I found an article that pointed out that some scholars had questioned the validity of the Lewinsky Affair (apparently, I'm not the only one engaged in week long debates), and so the historians who compiled the list stated the reason they chose the Lewinsky Affair over other events is because "it intesified partisan politics". Nothing about tarnishing Clinton's "sterling" presidency. However, my initial reaction upon reading that was to say "haven't partisan politics been heated since '94 and Gingrich?" but I know if I were to stick by that, I will be arguing it for another week. ;) http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060218/NEWS0104/602180406/1008/NEWS01

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-25T03:32:28Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#c83f8484-8512-4be2-9c3f-6e81b3467053 2006-02-25T01:49:19Z 2006-02-25T01:49:19Z

>>However, here we see Clinton's impeachment on the list and not Johnsons. There is no reference to either impeachment. >>Yes, but the same article you took those numbers from made the case that Gore would've won had he not distanced himself from Clinton. Whether that is true or not, I wouldn't know, it's inference, not fact . . . I cited the facts, which show that Clinton benefited Bush more than Gore. >>Clinton's popularity at the end of his Presidency, and even during the impeachment remained overall high. Now you change your tune: You just cited statistics showing that most people considered him untrustworthy and were glad he was leaving office . . . >>His popularity is what would be affected by the Lewinsky Affair, not his job performance . . . Considering that the Lewinsky Affair and subsequent impeachment proceedings took up much of Clinton's time for two years, it obviously affected both. >>I would think the sheer volume of scandals, whether they eventually amounted to anything or not, that occurred during his administration was the cause of such disillusionment. These scandals had been raging since he took office in 1993, or possibly before . . . which didn't stop him from being re-elected with a healthy margin . . . the numerous false allegations damaged the Republicans more than Clinton . . . it was not Clinton but Newt Gingrich who left office in disgrace . . . >>That's great, maybe he can take over Clinton's spot on the list if they rewrite it in 2008. Think the war will be over by then? >> Bush Sr. wasn't the one who pulled the troops out of Somalia nursing wounds, nor was he the one who declared the Rwandan Genocide a "local conflict". Clinton had little choice but to withdraw: Bush had sent an inadequate and under-equipped force into a lawless and chaotic country (sound familiar?) . . . Clinton's choices were to reinforce (risking a Vietnam-like escalation) or to pull out . . . Pulling out was not a major blunder, it was a reasonable decision under the circumstances. . . It was certainly a blunder not to recognize the Rwandan Genocide . . . however, it all took place in a period of less than three months, so it is questionable how much he could have done about it . . .

Forrest 2006-02-25T01:49:19Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#66f23e3a-68ff-4187-b26b-713c85494a01 2006-02-24T23:22:44Z 2006-02-24T23:22:44Z

Here's the article (it's hidden behind "premium content" so I can't post a link): The isolationist temptation Feb 9th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition A growing number of Americans would like fewer entanglements with foreigners FOR many Americans, it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world out there, and getting worse. During the Salman Rushdie affair 17 years ago, angry Muslims were content merely to call for the death of the allegedly blasphemous author and his publishers. This week, they were calling for the death not only of some allegedly blasphemous cartoonists but also their compatriots. And people from neighbouring countries. And Jews. And, inevitably, Americans. What's the point, some Americans grumble, of engaging with such people? We gave the Iraqis freedom, runs the argument, and they repaid us with roadside bombs. Palestinians got the vote and used it to elect terrorists. And dealing with the rest of the world is scarcely more rewarding: old Europe sneers at us, the Chinese steal our jobs and Mexicans are quietly re-conquering the south-western United States. Wouldn't it be simpler to build a fence around our vast, rich, sane nation and let the rest of the world go hang? It is a sign of the appeal of such sentiments that George Bush devoted much of his state-of-the-union speech to them. “The road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting—yet it ends in danger and decline...America rejects the false comfort of isolationism...Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need...American leaders—from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan—rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.” Mr Bush oversimplified, using one word—isolationist—for several disparate opponents. But he is right to worry. Partly in reaction to the president's hyperactive foreign entanglements, various forms of isolationist sentiment are indeed on the rise. A Pew poll in October found 42% of Americans agreeing that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” That figure had jumped by 12 points in three years to its highest level since the mid-1970s (after the humiliation of Vietnam). Although Mr Bush was hardly fair when he described all advocates of a less muscular foreign policy as “isolationist”, he has correctly identified one of the strongest currents against which he must swim. Many Americans wish to disengage from the world in one or more of four ways: by fighting fewer wars, by trading less freely, by allowing fewer foreigners into their country or by giving less foreign aid. The purest isolationists, ironically, are to be found in the president's own party. Since Mr Bush came to office promising a “humble” foreign policy, they feel betrayed that he has practised the opposite. “Why would a president use his state of the union to lash out at a school of foreign policy thought that has had zero influence in his administration?” fumes Pat Buchanan, a former presidential aspirant and voice of the GOP's nativist wing. The answer: “His foreign policy is visibly failing, and his critics have been proven right.” Iraq never attacked America, argues Mr Buchanan, so America did not have to attack it. As for the idea that America's security depends on ending foreign tyranny, that is “noble-sounding nonsense”, writes Mr Buchanan. “Our security rests on US power and will, and not on whether Zimbabwe, Sudan, Syria, Cuba or even China is ruled by tyrants. Our forefathers lived secure in a world of tyrannies by staying out of wars that were none of America's business.” Mr Buchanan thinks foreign aid is “the looting of America for the construction of the New World Order”. He is proudly protectionist and he fears that Hispanic immigration threatens not only America's survival as one nation but also Republican dominance of American politics, since Latinos usually vote Democrat. Mr Buchanan has been singing this song for some time: it was part of his pitchfork rebellion against Mr Bush's father in the Republican primaries in 1992. But in damning the Iraq war and the use of force to spread democracy, Mr Buchanan is part of a much broader (and potentially more potent) movement. On the right, there are two main groups: small-government conservatives and foreign-policy realists. The former point to the huge cost to the taxpayer of the Iraq war and the Pentagon (see article). The latter, typified by Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national-security adviser, think that the old policy of propping up Arab strongmen brought “50 years of peace” to the Middle East. For different reasons, almost everyone on the left opposes the war. The people who have enough spare time to go on marches and listen to Cindy Sheehan tend to think “BusHitler” invaded Iraq to enrich Halliburton. A larger, quieter group thinks the administration launched an avoidable war and botched it. Overall, the proportion of Americans who think the Iraq war worth fighting has fallen from 70% in April 2003 to about 45% now. They take our jobs Opposition to Mr Bush's trade policies comes mostly from the Democrats. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) squeaked through the House last year by 217 votes to 215. Only 15 Democrats backed it—and unions promptly vowed to punish the “CAFTA 15”. Democratic presidents are usually more supportive of free trade than their party, perhaps because a president represents the whole nation, not just a district with a steel mill that might close because of imports. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for 2008, is a free trader. But it is not impossible that the party's increasingly angry base could nominate a protectionist in 2008. The party's vice-presidential candidate in 2004, Senator John Edwards, voted against cheap textile imports and then made stump speeches about a 10-year-old American girl who, he said, couldn't afford a winter coat. According to Gallup, the proportion of Americans who see foreign trade more as an opportunity for growth than as a threat to the domestic economy fell from 56% in 2000 to 45% last year. While many Democrats want to curb the inflow of foreign goods, many Republicans want to curb that of foreigners. Mr Bush says the American economy “could not function without” immigrants. Tom Tancredo, a Republican congressman from Colorado, disagrees. He argues that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits: immigrants' children must be schooled at taxpayers' expense, and their willingness to work for a pittance drags down the wages of unskilled Americans. He thinks that America's borders could be secured “relatively easily” and at “minimal cost” by building hundreds of miles of fences and deploying troops to patrol them (which would be good training, he says), and by punishing firms that employ illegals. He thinks the House would back 50-60% of his agenda—a tough anti-immigration bill passed late last year and is now in the Senate—and he hopes to make immigration an issue in the November mid-term elections. It will be. Many non-Hispanic Americans see illegal immigration as not merely an economic threat, but also a cultural one. In a recent poll, only 8% of respondents thought the problem “not very serious”, while 63% thought it “very” or “extremely” serious. The final “isolationist” issue, foreign aid, is not yet electorally significant, though polls show Americans tend to think their country is too generous. One reason to ignore the growth in isolationism in the short term is Mr Bush. He has made it clear he has no plans to change course. Iraq will be his legacy, so he has to see it through as best he can. He has compromised on free trade before, and may do so again, but few doubt where his preferences lie. On immigration, he seems sincerely liberal and convinced that Republicans can woo the swelling Hispanic vote. And on foreign aid, who'll notice a few odd billions in a budget of $2.77 trillion? Optimists point out that America has always had a vocal isolationist minority. And surely globalisation—more travel, ever deeper economic integration, common threats (such as global warming and terrorism)—mean that America cannot go it alone. Francis Fukuyama, a famously optimistic professor at Johns Hopkins University, even thinks the Muhammad cartoon row could pull America and Europe closer together, as Europeans realise they have more in common even with Texans than with Islamists. So the most likely outcome is surely that the current isolationist surge will fade away. But consider two things. First, greater integration and the war on terror have hardly brought the two sides of the Atlantic together. Meanwhile, despite his proud words in the state of the union, isolationism, broadly defined, has already tempered Mr Bush's policy. The public's exhaustion with Iraq makes it harder for the president to tackle Iran. He will also have to retreat on immigration if he is going to get something through. A lot depends on leadership. For the moment none of the leading candidates for the presidency in 2008 is an isolationist and the favourite in some polls, John McCain, is even more of an interventionist than Mr Bush. But with so many voters angry about the mad world beyond their borders, America might yet end up with both a more protectionist Congress and a president who is more reluctant to throw America's weight around.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-24T23:22:44Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#9344c5c6-f56c-4eff-8cdc-09788cb1e837 2006-02-24T23:15:50Z 2006-02-24T23:15:50Z

＞Being impeached was not Johnson's mistake, nor Clinton's . . . they never wanted to be impeached . . . the underlying offense, in Johnson's case, was that he sided with Southern whites and opposed Reconstruction . . . Clinton's offense was lying and flagrant adultery . . . these personal moral weaknesses contributed to the decline of his party . . .＞ I would think nobody would want to be impeached. However, here we see Clinton's impeachment on the list and not Johnsons. I don't know, maybe the authors of the list didn't want to list Johnson more than once. You know, give others a chance. ;) >Here's what I said: "Gore won 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton's ratings were above average. Bush won 29 of the 33 states where Clinton’s job performance was below the national average. " Yes, but the same article you took those numbers from made the case that Gore would've won had he not distanced himself from Clinton. In fact it was the central theme of the article. You posted these numbers to illustrate a connection between the Lewinsky Affair and the Bush election, however this connection is still vague. Clinton's popularity at the end of his Presidency, and even during the impeachment remained overall high. His popularity is what would be affected by the Lewinsky Affair, not his job performance (which could be affected by many many many other variables, such as Republican votership, dissatisfaction with social programs, dissatisfaction with taxes, you know, the things he actually *did* as President). >I am at a loss to identfy anything in Clinton's second term which could have caused such disillusionment, other than the Lewinsky Affair. I would think the sheer volume of scandals, whether they eventually amounted to anything or not, that occurred during his administration was the cause of such disillusionment. His administration has been labeled in the press as one of the most scandalous, whether unwarranted or not. I will grant you that the Lewinsky Affair was certainly the nail in the coffin for public trust of Clinton. However it made no bearing beyond his Presidency. >most Americans consider Bush's Presidency a failure. That's great, maybe he can take over Clinton's spot on the list if they rewrite it in 2008. >You forget, it was Bush Sr. who decided to intervene in Somalia . . . Clinton inherited this misguided policy from his predecessor . . . Clinton passed a law declaring necessary regime change in Iraq, however we don't hold Clinton accountable for that mess. Bush Sr. wasn't the one who pulled the troops out of Somalia nursing wounds, nor was he the one who declared the Rwandan Genocide a "local conflict".

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-24T23:15:50Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#6af627ef-59d5-459a-b7f4-1af8fc420cf8 2006-02-24T21:07:51Z 2006-02-24T21:07:51Z

>>Andrew Johnson also was impeached in office and "survived" but I didn't see that on the list, instead the list focused on the mistake Johnson made that actually had some bearing on America today. Being impeached was not Johnson's mistake, nor Clinton's . . . they never wanted to be impeached . . . the underlying offense, in Johnson's case, was that he sided with Southern whites and opposed Reconstruction . . . Clinton's offense was lying and flagrant adultery . . . these personal moral weaknesses contributed to the decline of his party . . . >>If not wild speculation, then completely ignoring the numbers you yourself posted. How could Bush gain a boost over Gore if it turns out that had Gore not distanced himself from Clinton he would have won New Hampshire and/or Arkansas? Here's what I said: "Gore won 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton's ratings were above average. Bush won 29 of the 33 states where Clinton’s job performance was below the national average. " In other words, Clinton hurt Gore more than he helped . . . this after Clinton himself was re-elected by a comfortable margin in 1996. I am at a loss to identfy anything in Clinton's second term which could have caused such disillusionment, other than the Lewinsky Affair. >>Bush's presidency has no bearing here. You've said so yourself. If it did, wouldn't we see Dubya's blunders on the list? I said that Iraq is "more of an on-going blunder than a historical one" and that it "is clearly a blunder, we don't yet know how big of a one". The effects of the war have been very bad, thus far . . . but these are not the sum of Bush's misgovernment . . . most Americans consider Bush's Presidency a failure. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aKSlfaIwdI6w&refer=us >>Clinton's failure in Somalia left that whole side of Africa in disarray to this day, and caused the Clinton Administration to avoid stopping the genocide in Rwanda. You forget, it was Bush Sr. who decided to intervene in Somalia . . . Clinton inherited this misguided policy from his predecessor . . .

Forrest 2006-02-24T21:07:51Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#0700c83d-237d-43e9-808b-1a1dd74b3be1 2006-02-24T14:46:58Z 2006-02-24T14:46:58Z

The Feb 11th-17th, 2006 issue of The Economist had a really great article ("The Public Mood - The isolationist temptation", page 33) about America's growing sense of Isolationism from both the left and the right, and the pros and cons of that policy. If I can find the article online I will repost it, otherwise I suggest checking it out.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-24T14:46:58Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#f390db18-1027-4d22-a9f7-a681ef38229c 2006-02-24T14:43:48Z 2006-02-24T14:43:48Z

>And as I pointed out, Whitewater and Travelgate and so on didn't amount to a hill of beans. If they could have impeached him for one of those, they would have. The impeachment didn't actually amount to a hill of beans either, other than score his administration as "untrustworthy". Andrew Johnson also was impeached in office and "survived" but I didn't see that on the list, instead the list focused on the mistake Johnson made that actually had some bearing on America today. >It is not "wild speculation" that Bush won the 2000 election by tiny margin (if any). Clearly, a great many things could have changed the outcome, of which the Lewinsky Affair is one. It is wild speculation to declare the reason Bush won is due in large part to the Lewinsky Affair. If not wild speculation, then completely ignoring the numbers you yourself posted. How could Bush gain a boost over Gore if it turns out that had Gore not distanced himself from Clinton he would have won New Hampshire and/or Arkansas? It's more probable that, had the Lewinsky Affair not happened, Gore would have still lost. He didn't have the charisma of Clinton nor the public trust in his ability to be President. Gore stopped Gore from winning. >After five years of George W. Bush, we are in a position to form some judgement concerning his presidency: Bush's presidency has no bearing here. You've said so yourself. If it did, wouldn't we see Dubya's blunders on the list? Surely they would be greater, even in his first term than the Lewinsky Affair. If you are going to argue the Lewinsky Affair put Bush in office again, please reread my second paragraph above. >I doubt you have any insight as to their motives. They gave the Lewinsky Affair a ranking of #10 out of 10, which is all it deserves . . . nonetheless I could be persuaded that some other Presidential blunder ranks higher, if you want to try making that case . . . But you do? You've spent the last couple of days in vain trying to persuade me of the reasons the authors included the Lewinsky Affair after I voiced a public disagreement with the list. I still contend it deserves less and instead I offer this suggestion (to make you happy it even involves Clinton!): Clinton's failure in Somalia left that whole side of Africa in disarray to this day, and caused the Clinton Administration to avoid stopping the genocide in Rwanda.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-24T14:43:48Z Stickboy http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#d59f50a5-a1b3-46c3-a7b4-22ba606a7325 2006-02-24T02:42:26Z 2006-02-24T02:42:26Z

It seems to me if he had good sense about him that Clinton should have pre-emptively attacked BushCo. for the good of the American people. If he can help bring "peace to the Balkans," then why are we allowing our President any leniency at all in invading Iraq and staying there as an occupier? No one has mentioned Camp Bondsteel or other bases that were opened around the world during Clinton's presidency, nor during Bush I or II's. America really -SHOULD- stay out of the world's affairs more, we tend to meddle in everything. Just look at Cuba and the US.

Stickboy 2006-02-24T02:42:26Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#5720c836-23cb-466f-938d-dc40aa6bcc9b 2006-02-24T02:38:12Z 2006-02-24T02:38:12Z

>>As I also mentioned before, he was embroiled in more than one scandal. And as I pointed out, Whitewater and Travelgate and so on didn't amount to a hill of beans. If they could have impeached him for one of those, they would have. >>Just to sum up this long thread: You contend that the Lewinsky Affair led to the election of Bush and to the US involvement in Iraq. I think that is wild speculation at best, and anyway any effect that the Lewinsky Affair has had can't be really determined yet as Bush is still in office and still running the show. It is not "wild speculation" that Bush won the 2000 election by tiny margin (if any). Clearly, a great many things could have changed the outcome, of which the Lewinsky Affair is one. After five years of George W. Bush, we are in a position to form some judgement concerning his presidency: Although the Afghan War and the Iraq War have not yet been concluded, beginning the latter without having completed the former, without sufficient justification, adequate forces or financial means, must be regarded as a serious blunder. The gradual burn-out of our military, which is now filling its depleted ranks with drug addicts and convicted felons, will surely have long-term strategic consequences. Meanwhile, the President's contempt for long-standing treaties and alliances (especially the Geneval Conventions) has squandered international goodwill which had taken decades to earn. Huge budget and trade deficits, which leave us without anything worth exporting, or a means of paying for our irresponsible spending, except by borrowing more money, will soon lead us to a financial hole with no way out. To this add ethical abuses, indifference to environmental damage, a health care system that leaves millions without coverage, obsessive secrecy, the politicization of the judiciary, civil rights infringements, a declining educational system . . . the damage has been incalculable. >>I further contend that the authors of this list gave in to the notion of adding an item that is remembered more recently to generate more than a passing glance at the list. I doubt you have any insight as to their motives. They gave the Lewinsky Affair a ranking of #10 out of 10, which is all it deserves . . . nonetheless I could be persuaded that some other Presidential blunder ranks higher, if you want to try making that case . . .

Forrest 2006-02-24T02:38:12Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#2e10a77c-e3e1-4483-aeb7-5de885a313fb 2006-02-24T00:28:09Z 2006-02-24T00:28:09Z

>It seems clear that the Lewinsky Affair was Clinton's worst blunder and that it didn't have a favorable effect on his public image. According to the statistics you just cited, 68% of those polled believed that Clinton would be most remembered for scandal. As I also mentioned before, he was embroiled in more than one scandal. >The question before us is whether the Lewinsky Affair belongs on the list of worst Presidential blunders; that other things contributed to the outcome is not at issue. My point exactly, I contend that it doesn't. However, I could see it on a list of "Worst Blunders by Clinton during his Presidency". >There have been many corruption-ridden Administrations in American history . . . but it is difficult to pick out any single, specific "blunder" on the part of Grant or Harding . . . Clinton was, generally, far more successful as President, but he did make one huge mistake . . . I'm afraid you have failed to convince me why this should still be on a list of "Worst Presidential Blunders". In 80 years, people are going to look back on the Lewinsky Affair with about the same interest as people take in the Teapot Dome Scandal, and with the same relevance to their lives. Actually maybe even less, since Teapot Dome led to anti-corruption legislation, and Lewinsky still hasn't led to anti-boffing-interns-in-the-oval-office legislation. Just to sum up this long thread: You contend that the Lewinsky Affair led to the election of Bush and to the US involvement in Iraq. I think that is wild speculation at best, and anyway any effect that the Lewinsky Affair has had can't be really determined yet as Bush is still in office and still running the show. I further contend that the authors of this list gave in to the notion of adding an item that is remembered more recently to generate more than a passing glance at the list. That seems like more a fault of the American attention-span than a fault of the authors however.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-24T00:28:09Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#08ace50c-eacb-4f0f-be93-59b8ced4670f 2006-02-23T20:01:42Z 2006-02-23T20:01:42Z

>Ah, lessons learned. However, you are drawing a conclusion that the Lewinsky Affair contributed to the Clinton's poor job performance average without any clear evidence (at least any clear evidence that I can see). It seems clear that the Lewinsky Affair was Clinton's worst blunder and that it didn't have a favorable effect on his public image. According to the statistics you just cited, 68% of those polled believed that Clinton would be most remembered for scandal. >>That is fair. So why do they only list the Lewinsky Affair as the product? There were certainly a lot of other things going on, but the 2000 election hung on a tiny margin of votes and you can point to several things which could have shifted the balance. The question before us is whether the Lewinsky Affair belongs on the list of worst Presidential blunders; that other things contributed to the outcome is not at issue. >>Yep, but his effect on the Bush Administration isn't, and without that, what about Lewinsky makes it a Worst Presidential Blunder? This seems so silly since the US presidency is a rich trove of scandalous material. No mention of Warren Harding's failure in delegation? There have been many corruption-ridden Administrations in American history . . . but it is difficult to pick out any single, specific "blunder" on the part of Grant or Harding . . . Clinton was, generally, far more successful as President, but he did make one huge mistake . . .

Forrest 2006-02-23T20:01:42Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#bb8c5fce-75ea-4933-be25-e95d6963c46a 2006-02-23T09:37:19Z 2006-02-23T09:37:19Z

>Not true at all. Clinton's coattails were huge: Gore one 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton's ratings were above average. Bush won 29 of the 33 states where Clinton’s job performance was below the national average. Thanks for the link. That article is interesting in that it hypothesizes that if Gore had *not* distanced himself from Clinton, he might have won (which was the real point of the article). Ah, lessons learned. However, you are drawing a conclusion that the Lewinsky Affair contributed to the Clinton's poor job performance average without any clear evidence (at least any clear evidence that I can see). For instance, his approval rating at the date he was impeached was 73% (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton). To me this sounds like a great percentage of people were still pretty accepting of Clinton even at the low point of his presidency. >I think it's fair to say, it was the product of a lot of things. That is fair. So why do they only list the Lewinsky Affair as the product? >Clinton's, however, is history . . . Yep, but his effect on the Bush Administration isn't, and without that, what about Lewinsky makes it a Worst Presidential Blunder? This seems so silly since the US presidency is a rich trove of scandalous material. No mention of Warren Harding's failure in delegation? He managed to assemble, accidentally or no, possibly the most corrupt administration in history. But I guess the Clinton thing scales as more important because of the word "impeach".

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-23T09:37:19Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#90eec895-9c3d-497e-9ee4-a4f8666e640e 2006-02-23T08:37:06Z 2006-02-23T08:37:06Z

>>It's reach didn't go beyond his presidency. Not true at all. Clinton's coattails were huge: Gore one 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton's ratings were above average. Bush won 29 of the 33 states where Clinton’s job performance was below the national average. http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm >>Unfortunately this is very speculative, and teeters on the assumption that Clinton's impeachment was the fine line that pushed the electoral vote over to Bush in 2000, and not a product of continued Republican buildup in government starting as far back as 1994 . . . I think it's fair to say, it was the product of a lot of things. >>You pointed this out yourself when you mentioned that Bush's track record is really continuing events rather than history. Clinton's, however, is history . . .

Forrest 2006-02-23T08:37:06Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#112524a7-ea66-434a-a0c2-4739af32318f 2006-02-23T02:47:22Z 2006-02-23T02:47:22Z

>As the polls you cite clearly indicate, the scandal had a serious effect on popular opinion . . . On his popular opinion. It's reach didn't go beyond his presidency. > it tarnished Clinton's otherwise excellent record and undoubtly influenced the outcome of the 2000 election, which was a very close one . . . though what-ifs are always somewhat speculative, There's plenty of doubt. Gore explicitly distanced himself from Clinton during the campaign, and there was no public perception that Gore was as lecherous as Clinton. In fact, just the opposite. Gore was seen as too optimistic and unrealistic for many Americans. >it seems very doubtful that we would be in Bagdad today if Monica Lewinsky had only keep her mouth shut (and you can take that anyway you want) . . . heh :) Unfortunately this is very speculative, and teeters on the assumption that Clinton's impeachment was the fine line that pushed the electoral vote over to Bush in 2000, and not a product of continued Republican buildup in government starting as far back as 1994 as I have pointed out previously (for instance, the Florida Secretary Of State who certified Bush as the winner of her state's vote in 2000). As I also pointed out before, Clinton set out the official policy towards Hussein's government. Had Gore been elected, it's assumed he would not have acted on it as Bush has, but is that really so? Had 9/11 happened on Gore's watch, would he have been reactionary? Would the CIA still have doctored a reason to invade Iraq, and would he have acted on it? To answer is completely speculation (unless of course, you *are* Al Gore). What-if's like this don't seem to be the realm of the "Worst Presidential Blunders" list, a list of verifiable facts. You pointed this out yourself when you mentioned that Bush's track record is really continuing events rather than history.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-23T02:47:22Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#e80725b0-22bc-4f00-be44-66023d16f228 2006-02-23T01:59:51Z 2006-02-23T01:59:51Z

>>Sir, you obviously hold Clinton in some esteem so why you'd debate with me to defend his place on such a malignant list is hard to comprehend. As the polls you cite clearly indicate, the scandal had a serious effect on popular opinion . . . it tarnished Clinton's otherwise excellent record and undoubtly influenced the outcome of the 2000 election, which was a very close one . . . though what-ifs are always somewhat speculative, it seems very doubtful that we would be in Bagdad today if Monica Lewinsky had only keep her mouth shut (and you can take that anyway you want) . . .

Forrest 2006-02-23T01:59:51Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#05cdebf7-534e-4e88-8656-ef76dfc6bd27 2006-02-23T00:55:34Z 2006-02-23T00:55:34Z

Sir, you obviously hold Clinton in some esteem so why you'd debate with me to defend his place on such a malignant list is hard to comprehend. >Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating, the highest since polling began. His approval dropped to 43% after his outgoing controversial Presidential pardons including pardons for convicts who's families donated hard cash to his Presidential Library. His approval at the end of his first term was in the 50s and he received less than half the popular vote. Since his 68% approval rating was at the end of his second term, using your logic, wouldn't that mean that the Lewinsky Affair (also happened in his second term) contributed to his popularity? His legacy was hardly regarded as "sterling" though: ---------------- CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL January 5-7 Which comes closer to your view of Bill Clinton as he prepares to leave the White House -- I'm glad he is leaving, or I'll miss him when he is gone? Glad he is leaving 51% Will miss him 45 In your view, will Clinton mostly be remembered as president for his accomplishments, or his involvement in personal scandal? Scandal 68% Accomplishments 28 Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy? Yes 39% No 58 ---------------- I guess I should say it again, I don't think Clinton was a bad president, but in my opinion the nostalgia people have for him is unwarranted. However that isn't really the issue here. We can bring up Clinton's successes and conspicuously leaving off his failures all day but we eventually come back to the original topic: How is it that the Lewinsky Affair (which didn't come to anything important, unless you count Clinton's exile to sleeping on the Presidential couch) is considered to have a rippling effect on American History? What did this do to hurt the American people? Your claim that a scandal during his presidency had some profound effect on Americans today still seems a bit aggrandizing. I suppose if you are diehard about Clinton remaining #10 on this list, you could try to tie the Lewinsky Affair to the rise in American Conservatism. However, as I plainly pointed out earlier, the Republican overthrow happened on Clinton's watch before the Lewinsky Affair (after the Health Insurance industry pressured the Democratic-majority congress to kill the Health Care reform bill), and American Conservatism was a momentum building since the Reagan era, so I don't buy that either.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-23T00:55:34Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#f0696966-c864-4cd0-aa03-1051cedc1db7 2006-02-22T19:39:24Z 2006-02-22T19:39:24Z

>>I didn't mean to imply that Clinton didn't do enough. What he did do was a lot of appeasement abroad (hence my use of the phrase "not rocking the boat"). Enough to apparently irk the public and cause the Republicans to pick up the popular banner of isolationism in 2000. Foreign policy rarely decides Presidential elections. Clinton's foreign policy might have irked the neoconservatives, but they weren't likely to vote Democratic anyway . . . For most people, foreign policy was a secondary issue. CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL January 13-16 We'd like to know which issues will be important to you when you vote in this year's presidential election. Please tell me if it will be extremely important to your vote, very important, somewhat important, not too important or not important at all. Extremely important: Education 39% Raising children 33% Health costs 32% Social Security 31% Taxes 29% Moral standards 29% President's character 29% Economy 28% Gay rights 8% Trade 10% Campaign finance reform 12% World affairs 17% Sampling error: +/-3% pts http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/18/cnn.poll/ >>A "sterling Presidency"? The Whitewater scandal was nothing? Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey don't exist? His failed health care reform plan made him look saintly? NAFTA went over well? Actually, the other scandals didn't come to anything . . . Whitewater was a bust and Clinton's other women were generally dismissed as "trailer trash." Republicans, rather than Democrats, were blamed for killing the health care plan. NAFTA was a major legislative victory for Clinton . . . Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" was ridiculed, as it seemed to be going well . . . Clinton’s major accomplishments: - More than 22 million new jobs - Homeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5% - Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years - Higher incomes at all levels - Lowest poverty rate since 1979. - Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion - Lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974 - Higher stock ownership by families than ever before - 220% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, 300% increase in the Nasdaq from 1993 to 2001 - Expanded free trade through GATT. - Brought peace to the Balkans as part of a broad international coalition. - Restored a democratically-elected government to Haiti. - Mediated a lasting peace agreement in Northern Ireland. - Expanded NATO. - Furthered nuclear disarmament. - Expanded environmental protection. - Founded AmeriCorps. - Reduced the federal bureaucracy by 272,000. - Expanded student loans. - Cut taxes for families with incomes of $27,000 or less. - Reduced the welfare rolls. - Put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. - Lowest crime rates in 25 years. - Increased punishment for hate crimes and gun crime. - Increased funding for infant health care and AIDS treatment. - Expanded veterans benefits. Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating, the highest since polling began.

Forrest 2006-02-22T19:39:24Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#0530f05c-498a-4a69-a1af-c306b7a3975d 2006-02-22T10:51:20Z 2006-02-22T10:51:20Z

>If, as you say, Clinton wasn't doing enough, why did we elect someone who promised to do even less? Ah, here we go. The thread goes "political". I think I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that Clinton didn't do enough. What he did do was a lot of appeasement abroad (hence my use of the phrase "not rocking the boat"). Enough to apparently irk the public and cause the Republicans to pick up the popular banner of isolationism in 2000. >The Lewinsky Affair was the element that tarnished an otherwise sterling Presidency and contributed to subsequent Republican political successes. A "sterling Presidency"? The Whitewater scandal was nothing? Gennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey don't exist? His failed health care reform plan made him look saintly? NAFTA went over well? The Lewinsky Affair happened in 1998, yet the Republicans completed their coup of the House in 1994, which was the high point of the Republican successes, subsequent or otherwise. That coup was fueled in large part by the aforementioned health care reform failure, and the public perception that Democrats can't get things done. The Lewinsky Affair is barely a footnote in that issue. I should clarify that I think Clinton was not a bad president, I certainly don't mean to imply that. But I think a lot of people have this saintly angelic nostalgia about Clinton, and they convieniently forget they were complaining about him just as much as everyone else during his presidency. Of course, I can't really blame such people when the current administration is compared, the Clinton administration really does look like "the good ol' days". However, to get back to the original point of this topic, I don't see the Lewinsky scandal as being a "Worst Presidential Blunder" that would affect anything other than the Clinton marriage, which in the scope of American history is hardly important. Instead, this entry feels more like catering to those people who need something on the list to make it feel more relevant to current times.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-22T10:51:20Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#28977ff8-f0c1-404d-96d5-8ef3cb0bb40e 2006-02-22T08:06:25Z 2006-02-22T08:06:25Z

>>That he didn't fight very hard for American interests abroad, although seen as a way of not rocking the boat too much, was not a plus for the country. Instead foreign policy problems were introduced then that are still being dealt with today, especially in trade with China, foreign relations in Africa, etc. In fact, Bush was elected initially on a platform of *less* foreign meddling. If, as you say, Clinton wasn't doing enough, why did we elect someone who promised to do even less? >>Even then, I don't see how that equates to being a "Worst Presidential Blunder". The Lewinsky Affair was the element that tarnished an otherwise sterling Presidency and contributed to subsequent Republican political successes.

Forrest 2006-02-22T08:06:25Z Lupo http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#2e06a46b-f594-4d3e-a352-16de768b97f1 2006-02-22T02:22:10Z 2006-02-22T02:22:10Z

Well, he was one of two presidents in history to be impeached. He was impeached for a really retarded reason, but, you have to wonder about the man's judgement sticking his tubesteak into such an insecure ding bat.

Lupo 2006-02-22T02:22:10Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#91d48900-4326-4982-8379-4cb8ef30632e 2006-02-22T02:14:24Z 2006-02-22T02:14:24Z

>I don't see it . . . Foreign policy was more of a plus than a minus for Clinton. That he didn't fight very hard for American interests abroad, although seen as a way of not rocking the boat too much, was not a plus for the country. Instead foreign policy problems were introduced then that are still being dealt with today, especially in trade with China, foreign relations in Africa, etc. In fact, Bush was elected initially on a platform of *less* foreign meddling. Of course, after 9/11 he basically rewrote all his campaign promises. However Clinton's track record nor Bush's track record so far are relevant to this discussion. >Nader's misguided candidacy certainly had a huge effect, but with such a narrow margin, there were many things that could have changed the outcome. Agreed that many variables counted in that election, but I am not sure that the Lewinsky affair had much to do with it. Even then, I don't see how that equates to being a "Worst Presidential Blunder". If one were to say "Clinton's infidelity led directly to Bush's election, and Bush's election were a huge Presidential Blunder" then I could understand that point. But Bush's administration, although not proving to be fruitful, is certainly not the worst president the US has ever had, and anyway, it's still going on. >Yes, but though the Iraq War is clearly a blunder, we don't yet know how big of a one . . . will historians rate it with the Vietnam War or with Pershing's 1916 invasion of Mexico? My point exactly. Not history yet. >Bush certainly needed no encouragement. No, but he did need a way to sell it to Congress, other Republicans, the American People. That act went a long way towards establishing a precedent for the invasion. At the risk of sparking this into some sort of "Yet Another Politicing Thread", many people tend to forget that the President doesn't work in a vacuum. Whether or not Clinton's administration meant for that act to be just lip-service at the constant violations of UN sanctions during his administration, or whether he was laying groundwork for some sort of undefined action to occur against Hussein is a topic left up to historians and political scientists.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-22T02:14:24Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#67fc8399-6651-44e3-85be-799ae63e451e 2006-02-22T00:03:53Z 2006-02-22T00:03:24Z

>>Dissatisfaction with Clinton's foreign policies and trade policies with countries like China being one. Nader's run being another. I don't see it . . . Foreign policy was more of a plus than a minus for Clinton. Nader's misguided candidacy certainly had a huge effect, but with such a narrow margin, there were many things that could have changed the outcome. >>I wonder if 9/11 had happened during a Gore presidency, would Gore have kneejerked the same way Bush did? Gore would certainly have invaded Afghanistan . . . no changes there . . . but I much doubt he would have been suckered into invading Iraq. >>Regardless, as you pointed out earlier, isn't the current direction the nation is headed still history in the making? Yes, but though the Iraq War is clearly a blunder, we don't yet know how big of a one . . . will historians rate it with the Vietnam War or with Pershing's 1916 invasion of Mexico? We don't know yet. >>If Clinton did anything that has reverberations today, I would put forth his signing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declared it national policy to support "regime change" in Iraq. Bush certainly needed no encouragement.

Forrest 2006-02-22T00:03:24Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#7954527d-a406-45de-9c7f-90bb1abfd4fc 2006-02-21T23:42:40Z 2006-02-21T23:42:40Z

I don't buy it. There were plenty of other reasons than the Clinton scandal that figured far greater into why Gore wasn't elected. Dissatisfaction with Clinton's foreign policies and trade policies with countries like China being one. Nader's run being another. The State of Florida being an even bigger one. I wonder if 9/11 had happened during a Gore presidency, would Gore have kneejerked the same way Bush did? Certainly the American people would've demanded retribution (as they did 9/12/2001). If Gore hadn't responded strongly, he'd have been in danger of looking like Jimmy Carter. Regardless, as you pointed out earlier, isn't the current direction the nation is headed still history in the making? I've never understood why so many people place such importance on Clinton's decision to boff an intern, in the White House or no. If Clinton did anything that has reverberations today, I would put forth his signing of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which declared it national policy to support "regime change" in Iraq. In the time since, Bush has certainly used that as a springboard for the War in Iraq.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-21T23:42:40Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#336787e6-fb42-41f5-98f1-ae38c7f8450e 2006-02-21T18:10:55Z 2006-02-21T18:10:55Z

I would endorse the theory that if Clinton hadn't been such a lecher, Gore would have been elected in 2000, taking the country in a very different direction from where it is headed today . . .

Forrest 2006-02-21T18:10:55Z $item.owner.firstName http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#59743233-8dd3-4890-8243-c5b6bf9665bc 2006-02-21T08:57:45Z 2006-02-21T08:57:45Z

I saw this article in Yahoo News, but I didn't understand the importance of #10. The Clinton scandal only affected his presidency and that was during his last term at that. There aren't any historical reverberations from that incident on the magnitude of the other incidents on the list. I can think of a few other past presidential blunders that are of greater miscalculation to the security of the US than sex with an intern.

$item.owner.firstName 2006-02-21T08:57:45Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#6ea7c337-1262-4e14-819b-ec89aef1305a 2006-02-20T23:05:28Z 2006-02-20T23:05:28Z

I'd say that's more of an on-going blunder than a historical one . . .

Forrest 2006-02-20T23:05:28Z Lisa Eirene http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#5b81146f-1a64-4d2a-bd5f-d40bf3b076ec 2006-02-20T21:43:29Z 2006-02-20T21:43:29Z

where's george w bush and his osama nonsense????

Lisa Eirene 2006-02-20T21:43:29Z Forrest http://history-geeks-get-chicks.tribe.net/thread/ae37b25f-f073-4cb6-8fda-9369f4e0ef78#55e5eee5-289c-41ef-bf5a-7c82cb727fb5 2006-02-20T19:44:13Z 2006-02-20T19:44:13Z

From engaging in sexual relations with an intern to letting the Vietnam War escalate, U.S. presidents have been blamed for some egregious errors. So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center. The survey's top 10 presidential blunders were announced Saturday during a President's Day weekend conference called "Presidential Moments." "We can probably learn just as much - or maybe even more - by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great," said political scientist and McConnell Center Director Gary Gregg. Scholars who participated said Buchanan didn't do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War. The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson's decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery. "We continue to pay" for Johnson's errors, wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus. Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said. Where does Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal rank? Many scholars said it belonged at No. 10, saying that it probably affected Clinton's presidency more than it did American history and the public. The rest of the top 10 blunders: -4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. -5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up. -6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain. -7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. -8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. -9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Presidential_Errors.html

Forrest 2006-02-20T19:44:13Z