Evaluate the below statements.

[zaxx19]

1) Bill Clinton had a very successful domestic agenda which brought about surpluses, reduced welfare rolls, and across the board drops in both violent crime and teen pregnancy.

2) G.W. Bush and his staff have properly protected the US people SINCE 9-11, this can be evidenced by the lack or repeat incidents in the 40 months following the attacks.(given that most people both left and right of center were fairly convinced another attack was imminent following 9-11 a fact that CANNOT BE DEBATED)

Ill answer these 2 later myself...dont presume you know what my answers will be bc it might suprise people.

[whiskeytown]

statement 1...true

statement 2...false - since AQ takes 2-4 yrs to plan an attack, it's right to say any attack they have is still forthcoming.....

and since GWB did jackshit before 9/11 - going so far as to ignore the advice of Richard Clarke, his best terrorism advisor, regarding what to do in case of terrorism, then what anyone has done afterwards does not make up for their incompetence before 9/11

RB

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bill Clinton had a very successful domestic agenda which brought about surpluses, reduced welfare rolls, and across the board drops in both violent crime and teen pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton occupied the office while the GOP congress pushed welfare reform, tax reforms, and other economic reforms. Clinton can not be given credit for the domestic results you cite during his term. Most happened independent of political influences, the rest mostly by the actions of congress.

[ QUOTE ]


2) G.W. Bush and his staff have properly protected the US people SINCE 9-11, this can be evidenced by the lack or repeat incidents in the 40 months following the attacks.(given that most people both left and right of center were fairly convinced another attack was imminent following 9-11 a fact that CANNOT BE DEBATED)


[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the credit can be given to Bush. He has been doing things in the right direction, but other factors are also in play. Your cited evidence is inconclusive at best. Nonetheless, Bush has done more than would have been likely under Clinton, Gore, or Kerry

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
G.W. Bush and his staff have properly protected the US people SINCE 9-11. This can be evidenced by the lack or repeat incidents in the 40 months following the attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say "evidenced". Alright, then. The above statement presumes that the following conditions apply concurrently:

1. The terrorists had plans to have "repeat incidents" right after 9/11.

2. Everybody and his poker buddy knew of those terrorist plans.

3. Whatever it is that GWB and his administration have done since 9/11, it has deterred repeat attacks.

I submit that #1 is nowhere near proven. On the contrary, I'd say that we should NOT be expecting the terrorists to have made any move right after 9/11.

That doesn't mean that America should not get ready for them. Do I think that GWB prepared America adequately? No, I don't, he totally lost focus - he went to war against ...Iraq! The funds for the protection of commercial harbours in the US are less than one week's worth of Iraq. So, I truly don't see what GWB has done on #3.

And #2 is tabloid silly.

[sam h]

Both statements represent simplistic and faulty causal inferences.

Clinton presided over an economic boom, and this economic growth had positive social effects. He made pretty sound economic policy but that policy itself can't be credited with causing the boom, which was much more a product of (a) the business cycle (b) gains from technological innovation and (c) gains from global economic integration.

Crediting Bush with having protected the US since 9-11 is also a dubious assertion. Who cares what people thought right after the first attack? There is no empirical evidence that other attacks have been stopped by Bush policies.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Sam H wins.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam H wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's close, but he gives Clinton a bit too much credit for his policies. The truth is no President has as much control over what goes on during his administration as people will attribute to him.

[zaxx19]

since AQ takes 2-4 yrs to plan an attack,

WOW, have you let the CIA in on this intimate knowledge of Al Qaeda operations you possess?? You could be pretty useful. Please dont link some author who also doesnt have a clue about how long it takes Al Qaeda to plan an attack.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bill Clinton had a very successful domestic agenda which brought about surpluses, reduced welfare rolls, and across the board drops in both violent crime and teen pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only domestic adgendas Clinton had were his wife's failed nationalization of healthcare and the budget / welfare reforms he adopted from the '94 GOP freshmen and their Contract with America. I give Clinton props for being enough of a moderate to adopt those efforts, but I don't give him all the credit for them because they weren't his (nor his party's) ideas.

[ QUOTE ]
2) G.W. Bush and his staff have properly protected the US people SINCE 9-11, this can be evidenced by the lack or repeat incidents in the 40 months following the attacks.(given that most people both left and right of center were fairly convinced another attack was imminent following 9-11 a fact that CANNOT BE DEBATED)

[/ QUOTE ]

George W. Bush has been strong in the fight against terrorism by disrupting the taliban and moving much of the conflict onto their home turf. I believe the Iraq War was necessary based on information available at the time, and the possible consequences of inaction (not linked, but highlighted by 9/11) were high enough to warrant not taking more time for resolutions or gathering intelligence. Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack gives a very balanced view of the admistration's thinking on this (which was far less deceptive or wreckless as some would like us to believe).

It is wonderful that another major attack has not happened on our soil, but I don't attribute this to GWB or the Patriot Act or the Department of Homeland Bureaucracy. Taking the fight overseas may have helped (or at least demonstrated that terrorist actions have consequences), but we are still quite vulnerable to attack, and as long as we are a free nation, we probably will stay vulnerable. Let's not get too comfortable. That's what the enemy wants.

[RogerZBT]

SamH said Clinton's policies couldn't be credited with the economic boom and THAT was too much?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sam H wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's close, but he gives Clinton a bit too much credit for his policies. The truth is no President has as much control over what goes on during his administration as people will attribute to him.

[/ QUOTE ]true. But come on, I know its hard for conservatives to say anything nice about Clinton, but come on. Sam H posts was really spot on.