Comments on: Bush speaks out

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:21:30 +0000

Klasko: he Clinton presidency bears much of the blame for not dealing with Osama Bin Laden when he was handed to them on a silver platter.

When was that?

I’ll save you the trouble. The above never really happened; it’s a half-truth at best.

Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden, who was living there at the time, to Saudi Arabia (not America); Saudia Arabia didn’t want him.

That was in 1996. While it was clear bin Laden was an anti-American extremist (not really a rarity in that part of the world), he hadn’t actually done anything yet. The embassy bombings were still two years in the future, let alone the Cole and 9/11.

So just what was Clinton supposed to have done?

By the way, Clinton’s administration was not at all indifferent to bin Laden. It’s just that before he had committed any terrorist acts, there was no basis on which to take him.

Report comment to moderator

By: klasko

klasko — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:37:53 +0000

#14 – Random – Do you really want to go there? The Clinton presidency bears much of the blame for not dealing with Osama Bin Laden when he was handed to them on a silver platter. Just because it happened on Bush’s watch (when he was still trying to prove his legitimacy as president because people were still carping about how he stole the election, yadda, yadda. That plan was in the making long before Bush took office.) The cascade you speak of started long before he took office, it’s been decades in the making. And to be fair, not that I’m an Obama fan in the least, he inheretid his mess from at least the last 3-4 predecessors, not just the last one.

There’s enough blame to go around and lay at the feet of both parties.

Report comment to moderator

By: hrw

hrw — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:54:08 +0000

public or private is not the issue.

The real issue is good management. Private corporations have demanded and received a more deregulated environment over the last 30 years. The results have not been encouraging rather they have demonstrated bad management.

The second issue is for whom is wealth created.

As gov’t creates an environment where wealth can be created it must able to reward or punish depending on management ability and it should be able to direct for whom the wealth benefits.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:43:21 +0000

#10 9/11 occurred under Bush’s watch. Interesting definition of keeping the nation safe.

We are now cleaning up the mess in the economy that began to cascade under his watch. “Far more freedom,” is a grand statement’ you would need to present your case in a great with a great more detail and support to be more than an empty shell.

The Republicans were not overthrown by a military putsch. They lost because a lot of people wearied of how they run things. The Democrats will mess up the same way; your turn to mess up will come again, but for now you have to sit in the dog house.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:40:07 +0000

No, what got us in the mess was the failure to reform Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats refused to fix things in order to win the election, and you’re still drinking their kool aid.

Report comment to moderator

By: Peter L

Peter L — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:32:22 +0000

On whether President Obama’s policies are “socialist”:

“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on— . . . We’ll see.”

I can hear Clinton saying this. “It depends on how you define ’socialist’”

Report comment to moderator

By: montyfisherwoof

montyfisherwoof — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:18:20 +0000

#4 Kwatson, that the problem was under regulation is Obama kool aid. It is his propaganda that companies are not communist enough.

Report comment to moderator

By: montyfisherwoof

montyfisherwoof — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:16:28 +0000

RANDOM, Bush kept the nation safe. The Stock market was twice what Obama made it into. The country had far more freedom than we do under Obama.
As far as he went Bush was pretty reserved in his comments. Probably far more reserved than he should have been.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:35:03 +0000

Bush had eight years to show what a good job Republicans can do. The job they did was not that good. They lost. He shoul put a sock in it for a while.

Report comment to moderator

By: DJ

DJ — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:20:54 +0000

#7 MIM
Yes, I have. And I also have alot of respect for people who start their own business—and it is tough to be successful at it.

I also have worked closely with small manufacturers to help them get tax breaks to expand their businesses and worker base. I have listened to their concerns and worries. It’s not pretty. And our current policy of making them compete with China and India is absurd!

Part of the problem is that small businesses (especailly manufacturing) have a weak lobby, while super-corporations practically own our legislators. In my opinion, the interests of small business is not really the same as the interests of very large corporations.

The large corporations practically run government through our elected officials, and obtain our support to do so by reminding us that small business is the engine of the economy. But some of the policies that are being created actually encourage development overseas and discourage it here. It is the international companies that benefit from those policies, not small businesses here.

For example, small manufacturers actually benefit from the presence of large manufacturers in the region. Large companies have the budget and breadth of product line to need, and therefore train, machinists and other skilled and semi-skilled workers. Small companies cannot afford to train all the people they need, but are often able to attract some of these workers from the larger companies, already trained. When manufacturing goes overseas, the machinists go away too. Small manufacturing here is injured in the process; and so is American job growth and stability.

Even Bush cut support for start-ups and other small businesses by slashing the Small Business Administration. Why would you do that when small business is the backbone of the economy? Because you’re listening to big business lobbyists who tell you that what is good for big business is also good for small business.

It’s not.

Report comment to moderator